Intellectual Freedom in New Zealand Public Libraries · PDF fileIntellectual Freedom in New...

Intellectual Freedom in New Zealand Public Libraries

An exploration of the variables that a ffect library workers’

understanding and application of intellectual freedom in the library

Kathryn Hill

Submitted to the School of Information Management,

Victoria University of Wellington

in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of

Master of Information Studies

June 2015

1

Abstract

Research Problem: The study aimed to ascertain New Zealand public library workers’

understanding of the principles of intellectual freedom and whether or not these principles

were applied in practice. Furthermore the study sought to explore the variables that affect

the attitudes and behaviours of public library workers towards intellectual freedom.

Methodology: The research project used a quantitative framework employing a cross-

sectional design to investigate the attitudes and behaviours of New Zealand library staff

toward intellectual freedom via online self-completion questionnaires. The sample

population was drawn from professional email lists NZLibs, PUBSIG-l and Te Rōpū

Whakahau.

Results: The 172 completed surveys revealed that respondents generally agreed with the

principles of intellectual freedom that the library associations promote. However their

commitment to these principles is often tested by the obligation that they feel towards

library stakeholders. The results indicate that experience, education, the employer and the

library association all play some role in shaping the professional attitudes and behaviours of

individuals towards intellectual freedom.

Implications: The results of the study suggest that more needs to do be done in regards to

the education of library staff and the public on the importance of intellectual freedom

within a democratic society. A stronger sense of professional identity needs to be cultivated

amongst library workers to ensure they have the confidence to stand behind their

professional ideals in the face of opposition. Furthermore survey results suggest that

employers need to place a higher priority on both training and awareness regarding the

principle of intellectual freedom within the library.

Key Words: Intellectual Freedom, Professional Ethics, Self-Censorship, Public Libraries

2

Table of Contents

Abstract ............................................................................................................................................ 1

Table of Figures ................................................................................................................................. 3

Table of Tables .................................................................................................................................. 6

1. Research Problem .......................................................................................................................... 7

2. Definition of key terms .................................................................................................................. 8

3. Literature Review .......................................................................................................................... 8

3.1. Intellectual Freedom and the Library Profession ..................................................................... 8

3.2. External Book Challenges and Intellectual Freedom ................................................................ 9

3.3. Community Standards ........................................................................................................... 10

3.4. Self-censorship ..................................................................................................................... 10

3.5. Attitudes of Librarians towards Intellectual Freedom ............................................................ 12

3.6. The Role of the Professional Library Associations and Employers .......................................... 13

3.6.1. Professional Library Associations .................................................................................... 13

3.6.2. Employers ...................................................................................................................... 13

3.7. Conclusion ............................................................................................................................ 14

4. Research Project .......................................................................................................................... 14

4.1. Conceptual Framework ......................................................................................................... 14

4.2. Objectives ............................................................................................................................. 15

4.3. Research Questions .............................................................................................................. 15

4.4. Hypotheses ........................................................................................................................... 15

5. Research Design .......................................................................................................................... 16

5.1. Population ............................................................................................................................ 16

5.2. Sample .................................................................................................................................. 17

5.3. Data Collection ..................................................................................................................... 17

5.3.1. Instrument ..................................................................................................................... 17

5.3.2. Pilot Study ...................................................................................................................... 18

5.3.3. Distribution .................................................................................................................... 18

5.3.4. Incentive to Participate .................................................................................................. 18

5.4 Ethical Considerations ............................................................................................................ 19

5.5. Limitations and Delimitations................................................................................................ 19

6. Analysis and Interpretation of Data.............................................................................................. 19

6.1.1. Survey Response ................................................................................................................ 19

6.1.2. Characteristics of Respondent Sample ............................................................................ 19

3

6.2. Data Analysis and Interpretation for Objective 1 ................................................................... 25

6.2.1. Quantitative Data ........................................................................................................... 25

6.2.2. Qualitative Data ............................................................................................................. 28

6.3. Data Analysis and Interpretation of Objective 2 .................................................................... 29

6.3.1. Quantitative Data ........................................................................................................... 29

6.3.2. Qualitative Data ............................................................................................................. 31

6.4. Testing of Hypothesis 1 ......................................................................................................... 32

6.5. Testing of Hypothesis 2 ......................................................................................................... 35

6.6. Data Analysis and Testing of Objective 4 ............................................................................... 38

6.7. Data Analysis and Testing of Objective 4 ............................................................................... 46

7. Discussion.................................................................................................................................... 63

7.1. Attitudes toward Intellectual Freedom.................................................................................. 63

7.2. Behaviours Regarding Intellectual Freedom .......................................................................... 64

7.3. Correlation Between Attitudes and Behaviours ..................................................................... 64

7.4. Effects of Certain Variables on Attitudes and Behaviours ...................................................... 65

7.4.1. Experience ..................................................................................................................... 65

7.4.2. Education ....................................................................................................................... 65

7.4.3. Library Association ......................................................................................................... 65

7.4.4. Employer........................................................................................................................ 66

8. Conclusions ................................................................................................................................. 66

9. Bibliography ................................................................................................................................ 68

Appendix A: LIANZA’s Statement on Intellectual Freedom* ............................................................. 72

Appendix B: Survey Instrument ....................................................................................................... 73

Appendix C: Cover Letter sent to Professional Email Lists ................................................................ 85

Table of Figures Figure 1: Conceptual framework outlining the variables thought to influence the behaviours

of library workers regarding intellectual freedom ............................................................... 14

Figure 2: Survey response by age range............................................................................... 20

Figure 3: Survey response by gender ................................................................................... 20

Figure 4: Survey response by library qualification................................................................ 21

Figure 5: Survey response by recency of library qualification attainment ............................ 21

Figure 6: Survey response by qualification attainment (other than library qualification) ..... 22

Figure 7: Survey response by years of experience in the library sector ................................ 22

Figure 8: Survey response by current employment position ................................................ 23

Figure 9: Survey response by time spent annually on professional development ................ 24

4

Figure 10: Survey response by library association membership and professional registration

........................................................................................................................................... 24

Figure 11: Survey response by size of community respondent’s library serves .................... 25

Figure 12: Responses to statements 1-10 ............................................................................ 27

Figure 13: Themes identified from survey respondent’s understanding of intellectual

freedom as it relates to public libraries ............................................................................... 29

Figure 14: Scatterplot of linear relationship between total respondent attitude and

behaviour scores ................................................................................................................. 34

Figure 15: Mean and standard error of total attitude scores by age group .......................... 38

Figure 16: Mean and standard error of total behaviour scores by age group ....................... 39

Figure 17: Mean and standard error of total attitude scores by gender ............................... 39

Figure 18: Mean and standard error of total behaviour scores by gender ........................... 40

Figure 19: Mean and standard error of total attitude scores by experience ........................ 40

Figure 20: Mean and standard error of total behaviour scores by experience ..................... 41

Figure 21: Mean and standard error of total attitude scores by library qualification ........... 41

Figure 22: Mean and standard error of total behaviour scores by library qualification ........ 42

Figure 23: Mean and standard error of total attitude scores by other qualifications ........... 42

Figure 24: Mean and standard error of total behaviour scores by other qualification .......... 43

Figure 25: Mean and standard error of total attitude scores by professional development . 43

Figure 26: Mean and standard error of total behaviour scores by professional development

........................................................................................................................................... 44

Figure 27: Mean and standard error of total attitude and behaviour scores by library

position ............................................................................................................................... 44

Figure 28: Mean and standard error of total attitude and behaviour scores by library

association membership ..................................................................................................... 45

Figure 29: Mean and standard error of total attitude and behaviour scores by professional

association .......................................................................................................................... 45

Figure 30: Mean and standard error of total attitude scores by community size ................. 46

Figure 31: Mean and standard error of total attitude scores by community size ................. 46

Figure 32: Respondent awareness of LIANZA's statement on intellectual freedom.............. 47

Figure 33: Mean and standard error of total attitude and behaviour scores by awareness of

LIANZA's statement on intellectual freedom ....................................................................... 47

Figure 34: Respondent opinion of practicality of LIANZA's Statement on Intellectual Freedom

........................................................................................................................................... 48

Figure 35: Mean and standard error of total attitude scores by opinion of practicality of

LIANZA's Statement............................................................................................................. 48

Figure 36: Mean and standard error of total behaviour scores by opinion on practicality of

LIANZA's statement ............................................................................................................. 49

Figure 37: Respondent opinion of usefulness of LIANZA's Statement on Intellectual Freedom

in a work situation .............................................................................................................. 50

5

Figure 38: Mean and standard error of total attitude scores by opinion of usefulness of


Figure 39: Mean and standard error of total behaviour scores by opinion of usefulness of


Figure 40: Respondent satisfaction with direction and support given by LIANZA on

intellectual freedom ............................................................................................................ 52

Figure 41: Mean and standard error of total attitude scores by satisfaction with direction

and support given by LIANZA on intellectual freedom ......................................................... 52

Figure 42: Mean and standard error of total behaviour scores by satisfaction with direction

and support given by LIANZA on intellectual freedom ......................................................... 52

Figure 43: Respondent completion of training for intellectual freedom offered by their

employer............................................................................................................................. 53

Figure 44: Mean and standard error of total attitude and behaviour scores by completion of

intellectual freedom training offered by employer .............................................................. 54

Figure 45: Respondent awareness of library policy stating their stance on intellectual

freedom .............................................................................................................................. 55

Figure 46: Mean and standard error of total attitude scores by awareness of library policy on


Figure 47: Mean and standard error of total behaviour scores by awareness of library policy

on intellectual freedom ....................................................................................................... 55

Figure 48: Respondent use of library policy on intellectual freedom ................................... 56

Figure 49: Mean and standard error of total attitude scores by use of library policy on


Figure 50: Mean and standard error of total behaviour scores by use of library policy on


Figure 51: Respondent satisfaction with direction and support given by employer in regards

to intellectual freedom........................................................................................................ 58

Figure 52: Mean and standard error of total attitude scores by level of satisfaction with

direction and support given by employer regarding intellectual freedom ........................... 58

Figure 53: Mean and standard error of total behaviour scores by level of satisfaction with

direction and support given by employer regarding intellectual freedom ........................... 59

Figure 54: Respondent professional identity ....................................................................... 60

Figure 55: Mean and standard error of total attitude scores by professional identity .......... 60

Figure 56: Mean and standard error of total behaviour scores by professional identity ...... 60

Figure 57: Respondent opinion on whether community views them as a professional ........ 61

Figure 58: Mean and standard error of total attitude by opinion as to whether the

community views them as professional ............................................................................... 62

Figure 59: Figure 58: Mean and standard error of total behaviour by opinion as to whether

the community views them as professional ......................................................................... 62

6

Table of Tables

Table 1: Definition of Library Position Categories ................................................................ 23

Table 2: Weighted values for statements phrased to support intellectual freedom (S. 1, 2, 6,

9, 10) ................................................................................................................................... 25

Table 3: Weighted values for statements phrased to support restriction of access to

information (S. 3, 4, 5, 7, 8) ................................................................................................ 25

Table 4: Statement response rate, mean, median and standard deviation of scores. .......... 26

Table 5: Hypothetical selection scenarios, respondent actions, mean and standard deviation

of scores ............................................................................................................................. 30

Table 6: Total Mean Score, Standard Deviation and Reliability Coefficient of Behaviour and

Attitude Tests ...................................................................................................................... 33

Table 7: Interpretation of correlation coefficients for testing of null-hypotheses ................ 34

Table 8: Correlation Coefficient and Significance for Hypothesis 1 ...................................... 35

Table 9: Results of ANOVA, inferred relationship and statistical significance of tested

variables ............................................................................................................................. 36

Table 10: Results of ANOVA, inferred relationship and statistical significance of variable of

respondent awareness of LIANZA's statement on intellectual freedom ............................... 47


respondent opinion on practicality of LIANZA's statement on intellectual freedom ............ 49


respondent on usefulness of LIANZA's Statement on Intellectual Freedom in a work situation

........................................................................................................................................... 51


respondent satisfaction with support and direction given by library association ................. 53


on the job training............................................................................................................... 54


respondent awareness of library's policy on intellectual freedom ....................................... 56


respondent use of library's policy ........................................................................................ 57


respondent satisfaction with direction and support from employer .................................... 59


respondent professional identity ........................................................................................ 61


respondent belief as to whether their professional opinion is respected by the community 62

7

1. Research Problem Intellectual freedom and the freedom of access to information are central to the library and

information sector. Numerous research studies have been carried out on the subject of

intellectual freedom and censorship in libraries. Fiske (1958) conducted the first major

research into censorship in public libraries and found that despite a professed commitment

to intellectual freedom by close to half of the Californian librarians interviewed nearly two

thirds chose not to buy a book due to its controversial nature. Later studies have all

reported similar discrepancies between the professed ethics of librarians towards the

principle of intellectual freedom and their professional practice (Busha, 1972; Cole, 2000;

Curry, 1997; Mar, 2009; Moody, 2004).

There have been several studies carried out in New Zealand exploring areas related to

intellectual freedom. Ball (1998) carried out a survey of public librarians to record incidences

of overt censorship and Donald (2002) investigated challenged books and self-censorship in

secondary school libraries. These studies incidentally revealed actions of internal

censorship such as labelling of items and restrictions of access at the discretion of the

librarian. Sullivan (2007) interviewed five librarians on the topic of community standards,

the interviewees revealed some caution around material that may be ‘offensive’ to library

and were shown to employ the internal censorship practice of labelling. Finally Nieuwoudt

(2012) interviewed nine library workers to explore their tendencies to self-censor and their

awareness and application of the principle of intellectual freedom. This study found that

despite interviewees proclaiming to be knowledgeable on the subject of intellectual

freedom, none were aware of the Library and Information Association of New Zealand

Aotearoa’s (LIANZA) statement on intellectual freedom and all opted to self-censor when

asked whether they would select certain controversial items for their library. These studies

all reveal some form of discrepancy between the stance of New Zealand library staff toward

intellectual freedom and their professional actions.

There has not yet been a broad study of New Zealand library workers’ awareness of and

attitudes toward the professional ethic of intellectual freedom. More importantly there

have been few previous studies that have attempted to identify the variables that might

influence library staff’s compliance with the principle of intellectual freedom. Busha’s 1972

North American study explored variables that might contribute to the attitudes of librarians

regarding intellectual freedom and censorship. He found a strong correlation between

formal education and anticensorship attitudes. However since this study there has been no

further significant exploration of the topic.

The aim of this research was to broadly survey New Zealand public library staff to ascertain

their awareness and understanding of intellectual freedom as it relates to public libraries.

The study also sought to find if the practices of staff within New Zealand public libraries

align with the ideals of intellectual freedom. Furthermore the study examined whether

8

various variables relating to experience, education, training and professional identity had an

effect on the attitudes and behaviours of library staff relating to intellectual freedom.

2. Definition of key terms Attitude: “An enduring pattern of evaluative responses towards a person, object, or issue.

According to a frequently quoted classical definition, it is a more or less consistent pattern

of affective, cognitive, and conative or behavioural responses (or of feeling, thinking, and

behaving) towards a psychological object, but the consistency implied by this definition is a

supposition that is frequently unmatched by reality, and it is possible to have

an attitude towards something without ever having the opportunity to express it in

behaviour” (Colman, 2009).

Behaviour: “The manner in which persons or groups conduct themselves, that may be

indicative of thoughts, feelings, moods, emotions, motivation, etc. An observable response

to a stimulus or an action that has a specific frequency, duration, and purpose, whether

conscious or subconscious” (Behaviour, 2007).

Censorship: The inverse of Intellectual freedom; the term “encompasses those actions

which significantly restrict free access to information” (Moody, 2005).

Library Items/Materials: Refers to physical materials available in the library collection and

for the purposes of this research excludes information accessible via the internet.

Intellectual Freedom: “the right of every individual to both seek and receive information

from all points of view without restriction. It provides for free access to all expressions of

ideas through which any and all sides of a question, cause or movement may be explored”

(American Library Association, n.d.).

Public Library Staff: An individual currently employed at a public library, in any position or

level, either part time or full time.

3. Literature Review

3.1. Intellectual Freedom and the Library Profession

Intellectual freedom and the freedom of access to information are considered cornerstones

of a democratic society. This freedom, to “seek, receive and impart information and ideas,”

has been declared a basic human right by the United Nations (The United Nations, n.d.).

Censorship, as the inverse of intellectual freedom, however is viewed as an undesirable

threat toward intellectual freedom. As a fluid concept censorship is notoriously difficult to

define (Duthie, 2010), however within library literature censorship is generally considered at

its core to be “any act which intentionally reduces free access to information” (Moody,

2004).

9

In the Public Library Manifesto the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural

Organisation (UNESCO) states that the “free and unlimited access to knowledge, thought,

culture and information” offered by libraries plays a vital role in creating an informed

citizenry, able “to exercise their democratic rights and play an active role in society.” The

Manifesto also stresses the importance of public libraries being free from any form of

ideological, political or religious censorship. These principles and strong anti-censorship

stance are reiterated by numerous library associations including International Federation of

Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA), and the American Library Association (ALA).

LIANZA’s 2002 statement on intellectual freedom (see Appendix A) takes a strong stance

against restricting access to information.

3.2. External Book Challenges and Intellectual Freedom

External censorship challenges are the most obvious and visible examples of attempts to

contravene intellectual freedom in the library. Public librarians will often experience

pressures from external individuals or groups to remove items from the library considered

to be unsuitable or offensive. The professional stance on censorship challenges is relatively

straightforward; the codes state that all attempts at censorship should be resisted unless it

is required by law. However the difficulty in following this edict is “the obligation of the

librarian to the communities, customers and governing bodies that they serve and are

funded by” (Oppenheim & Smith, 2004, p. 159). LIANZA (2002) states that materials should

not be censored “because of partisan or doctrinal disapproval or pressure;” however

librarians’ sense of obligation to communities and funding bodies often conflicts with these

professional obligations. Many public librarians are likely to identify with Duthie’s argument

that the “avoidance of controversy is often the only course open to a librarian” (2010, p.90).

Studies have revealed that, in order to avoid controversy, libraries have been known to take

censorious actions such as putting warning labels on materials, restricting access, moving

items to another area of the collection or in rare cases completely removing materials from

the library (Ball, 1998; Sullivan, 2007; Taylor & McMenemy, 2013). It is clear that despite

very clear professional guidelines that no materials should be removed or restricted because

of external pressure, the obligation librarians feel towards stakeholders will occasionally

win.

Another difficulty with external challenges is the difference between the public and the

library professions’ understanding of intellectual freedom and censorship. Knox’s (2014)

study of a book challenge case found that challengers generally do not view relocation,

restriction of access or labelling as censorship, believing so long as material stayed in the

library any action would not be censorious. This places library staff in the position of

needing to explain to challengers the, at times complex, philosophy of intellectual freedom

and censorship and how it relates to collection management. Fiske (1958) and Cole (2000)

found that when discussing important tenets surrounding intellectual freedom interviewees

would often contradict themselves, unable to clearly discuss the implications of intellectual

freedom and censorship. If library staff are unable to clearly articulate why a controversial

10

item should remain in the library when challenged, they could also be more susceptible to

these external pressures.

3.3. Community Standards

Conservative pressure groups commonly use the argument of community standards,

believing that they represent the majority of the community. Curry (1997) found that 67

percent of British and 37 percent of Canadian library directors agreed that the library should

uphold community standards. Fiske (1958) and Busha (1972) both found that librarians

would often self-censor material to avoid complaints from external groups or individuals.

However community standards are difficult to define or predict, often material that has

been identified as being considered potentially objectionable is accepted by the community

(Sullivan, 2007).When Sullivan (2007) asked study participants to define the standards of

their community they all generally categorised their community as diverse and as a result

they believed defining a community standard would be impossible. This reveals the problem

inherent in the concept; there is no single standard within a community. Parkinson (1987)

believes the use of community standards, as a justification for censorship is ‘dangerous’.

This is because the ambiguous concept of community standards inevitably leads to librarians

avoiding material that may be objectionable to community members who have the loudest

voice. Saunders suggests that the inclination toward self-censorship will result in libraries

ignoring under-represented points of view: “libraries are creating echo-chambers in which

active or vocal community members will find their own ideas and opinions reflected back to

them within library collections, while other perspectives will remain invisible” (2013, p.315).

Such a distortion of represented points of view is in direct contradiction to LIANZA’s

statement that a collection should “represent a spectrum of points of view on one topic

held in the community” (2002).

3.4. Self-censorship

The most insidious form of library censorship is that of self or pre censoring practised by

librarians. Hill distinguishes self-censorship from ‘actual censorship’ as an action made by

the librarian out of fear that “something might happen” (2010, p.9). This is an act that is

often hidden behind the excuse of selection or collection development policies. In exploring

the comparatively low censorship challenges in Scottish public libraries Kelly and

McMenemy state that the question needs to be asked whether “librarians are self-censoring

to the extent that their collections are designed to not promote controversial thoughts or

ideas” (2013, p.165). Fiske (1958) came to the conclusion that librarians themselves were

the most likely to censor their collections. Despite a professed commitment to intellectual

freedom by close to half of the Californian librarians Fiske interviewed, close to two thirds

chose not to buy a book due to its controversial nature. Donald’s (2005) study found that

once challenged librarians were much more likely to self-censor and would actively avoid

the purchase of controversial material. Both Fiske (1958) and Curry (1997) also found this

‘complaint fatigue’ in their respondents. This supports Sens’ declaration that; “at some

11

point, if not opposed, censorship becomes insidious, part of a practice that generates itself

without any further authoritarian intervention” (2010, p.1.).

An underlying issue in the identification of self-censorship practices within libraries is the

difficulty of differentiating between the practices of selection and censorship. The limited

budgets and space of libraries balanced with the needs of the community served

necessitates the selection of stock. However the very factors that compel stock selection,

such as lack of user demand and budget constraints, are often used as an excuse by

librarians when self-censoring, either consciously or subconsciously (Downey, 2013; Moody,

2004). Fiske found that librarians would hide their decision not to purchase controversial

books behind a “legitimate” reason such as literary quality to avoid such a purchase (1958,

p.65). Hiding censorious decisions or actions behind objective professional reasons is likely

linked to social desirability. Within the library profession and society as a whole intellectual

freedom is deemed ‘good’ and censorship is deemed ‘bad’. In fact due to the implicit social

and political power relationship involved in the practice of censorship Knox equates the

stigma attached to being labelled a censor to the stigma of being labelled a racist (2014).

Self-censorship is not just accomplished through avoiding the purchase of controversial

materials. Moody (2005) identifies cataloguing bias as a form of internal ‘covert’ censorship

practiced in libraries. This form of censorship takes place when items are delegated to the

broadest classification which makes items difficult to locate and results in less patron use

which ultimately makes the item a more likely candidate for deselection when a collection is

weeded. Labelling is also identified by Moody as a form of covert censorship as it is seen to

create bias and infringe on the professional ideals of intellectual freedom (2005). Whilst

labelling is most often done as a placating gesture when items are challenged by external

individuals or groups, Sullivan (2007) found that it was also employed to pre-empt

complaints about potentially controversial books.

Within the profession there is no ethical theory or model that is considered best practice

that can be applied by library professionals in an attempt to combat selection bias and self-

censoring tendencies (Oppenheim & Smith, 2004). The LIANZA statement on Intellectual

Freedom asserts that the selection of materials should be governed solely “by professional

considerations” (2002), implying that by consciously committing to a professional code of

ethical conduct or values the selector can avoid bias. This however would appear to be an

over simplification of what is in effect a complex psychological issue. Quinn argues that

because the psychology of bias often operates outside of conscious awareness it “requires

more subtle and sophisticated strategies of prevention and reduction than simply the desire

to act ethically” (2012, p. 301). Quinn further reasons that in order for the selector to

effectively counter bias they must understand how it develops and manifests

psychologically and how this translates into biased, censorious behaviour (2012, p. 301).

12

3.5. Attitudes of Librarians towards Intellectual Freedom

The influential research conducted by Fiske in California between 1956 and 1958 explored

censorship in public libraries by focusing on book selection policies and procedures, the

handling of challenges to materials and the attitudes of librarians. As discussed previously

Fiske (1958) found that some librarians would self-censor collections in order to avoid

censorship challenges. More importantly Fiske (1958) found that librarians exhibited

censorious behaviours in spite of their expressed commitment to information freedom

ideals.

Busha’s (1972) research conducted between 1970-71 surveyed 900 Midwestern public

librarians to ascertain their attitudes towards intellectual freedom and censorship. Busha

found that respondents showed a discrepancy between their attitude toward intellectual

freedom as a concept and their attitude toward censorship as an activity.

Curry’s (1997) influential research, conducted between 1990 and 1991 explored public

library censorship in the United Kingdom and Canada, focusing primarily on librarians

attitudes towards and experiences of censorship, also found the stated anti-censorship

attitudes of those interviewed were not always indicative of their censorship behaviours.

More recent studies have replicated these findings. Cole found the attitudes of librarians

interviewed towards intellectual freedom were highly inconsistent; whilst originally agreeing

with the principle the interviewees would later contradict themselves over the course of the

interview when discussing its application in stock management (2000, p.41). Moody’s (2004)

study also highlighted the discrepancy between the stated anticensorship attitudes and

censorious professional behaviours of librarians. The study also revealed a very narrow

understanding of the principle of intellectual freedom by some of the librarians surveyed

(Moody, 2004). Mar’s 2009 study also found that the librarians surveyed had rather loose

definitions of the principle of intellectual freedom and their professional attitudes towards

this principle did not always correlate with their professional actions. Nieuwoudt’s (2012)

study also found that whilst interviewees stated that they agreed with LIANZA’s statement

on Intellectual Freedom, they all showed self-censoring behaviours when asked to select

books.

It is clear that librarians have difficulty practically applying the philosophy of intellectual

freedom. Some librarians appear to have a much more relaxed understanding of the

principle than that which is espoused by library associations. This discrepancy between the

attitudes and practices of librarians regarding censorship and intellectual freedom and the

stance of library associations indicates that more direction and education on such a complex

ethical issue may be needed.

13

3.6. The Role of the Professional Library Associations and Employers

3.6.1. Professional Library Associations

Busha (1972) and Fiske (1958) both link the discrepancy between attitude and behaviour in

regards to intellectual freedom to the professional identity of librarians. Professional

identity and professionalism are inextricably linked and they affect the behaviours, attitudes

and values of individuals that underpin their approach to work (Henczel & Macauley, 2013).

Professional associations are shown to play a key role in the construction and maintenance

of professional identity. If the professional identity of library staff is strengthened they may

feel more equipped to assert the principles of intellectual freedom in the face of censorship

pressures, both immediate and anticipated.

The current policies or codes promoted by the library associations are often viewed as

unworkable in practical application. Duthie argues that librarians need specific instruction in

complex situations rather than the simplistic fundamentalist ideals offered by the ALA and

other associations (2010, p.88). Furthermore some consider that library associations do not

do enough in the promotion of intellectual freedom. In the United Kingdom Oppenheim and

Smith argue that the Chartered Institute of Library and Information Professionals (CILIP)

need to be more active in promoting their stance on censorship and further reinforce this

with visible action. The majority of British directors interviewed by Curry wanted their

library association to play a more active role in both the defence and promotion of

intellectual freedom (1997, p.198). Both Moody (2004) and Cole (2000) conclude from the

results of their research that their library associations, the Australian Library and

Information Association (ALIA) and CILIP, need to provide practical instruction as to how the

concepts of intellectual freedom should be applied to collection development.

3.6.2. Employers

Both British and Canadian directors who took part in Curry’s (1997) study acknowledged

that more training was needed at all employee levels on the topic of intellectual freedom.

However more immediately practical training needs tend to take priority because of the

“abstract nature” of professional ethic training. Aside from training, employers play an

important role in developing policies for staff to follow in regards to intellectual freedom.

It is believed that a clear collection policy can help to combat censorship in the library’s

collection. However, Ball found that the collection policies of nine libraries deliberately

avoided material that could be considered controversial (1998, p.44). There is some irony

that the very tool the profession claims to combat censorious tendencies in the acquisition

process, in these instances, is being used to officially entrench self-censorship behaviours

within the library. Furthermore out of the nine participants in Nieuwoudt’s (2012) study,

two didn’t know if their library had a policy and seven knew there was a policy but had

never actually read it.

14

3.7. Conclusion

The majority of library workers profess to agree with the principles of intellectual freedom;

however these principles are not always applied in practice. Due to an obligation to

stakeholders, librarians will occasionally give into censorship pressures or will self-censor

materials that they think might cause complaints. The extent of this restrictive behaviour is

impossible to ascertain as it is often hidden behind professional reasons or policy. The

literature suggests that education, professional identity, library policy, training, experience

and awareness and understanding of the concept might all influence library workers

professional behaviours regarding intellectual freedom. This study intends to explore these

variables and aims to measure the extent that they influence the attitudes and behaviours

of library workers pertaining to intellectual freedom.

4. Research Project

4.1. Conceptual Framework

The relationship between the application of intellectual freedom in libraries and several

core variables provide the conceptual framework for this study. The conceptual framework,

illustrated below (Figure 1), places these variables into four broad categories; the education

and experience of the worker, and the role played by both their employer and library

association. These variables influence the attitudes of library workers towards intellectual

freedom. These attitudes, as well as the aforementioned variables, in turn influence the

behaviours of library workers which affect intellectual freedom in the library.

Figure 1: Conceptual framework outlining the variables thought to influence the behaviours of library workers regarding intellectual freedom

15

4.2. Objectives

This study proposes to explore public library workers adherence to the principle of

intellectual freedom and the variables that might affect their level of compliance. The

following objectives have been determined for the proposed project:

Objective 1: To determine the attitudes of library staff towards the principle of intellectual

freedom.

Objective 2: To determine the intended behaviours of library staff regarding intellectual

freedom.

Objective 3: To explore the relationship between certain variables related to education and

experience and the attitudes and behaviours of library staff towards intellectual

freedom.

Objective 4: To explore the extent that the attitudes and behaviours of library staff toward

intellectual freedom are influenced by library associations and employers.

4.3. Research Questions

To meet the proposed research objectives this study intends to answer the following

research questions.

Research Question: What are the attitudes and behaviours of New Zealand public library

staff regarding the principle of intellectual freedom?

Sub Question 1: Do the purported attitudes of library staff correlate with their

professional behaviours?

Sub Question 2: To what extent do certain variables affect the attitudes and

behaviours of New Zealand public library staff toward the principle

of intellectual freedom?

Sub Question 3: Does the direction and support given by the library association and

the employer regarding intellectual freedom affect the attitudes

and behaviours of library workers in regards to intellectual

freedom?

4.4. Hypotheses

It is expected that the attitudes and behaviours of librarians towards intellectual freedom

will be positively related. It is also expected that certain variables, such as age, gender and

education will be related to these attitudes and behaviours. However the hypotheses will be

stated negatively, reflecting the opposite of the researcher’s expectations. This is because

null-hypotheses provide better numerical precision and testability, based on the rule of

negative inference in logic, null-hypotheses can be proved or disproved more easily than

their positive counterparts (Busha, 1972).

16

1. There is no significant relationship between the attitudes and behaviours of library

staff towards the principle of intellectual freedom.

2. There is no significant relationship between: (i) the attitudes and (ii) the behaviours

of library staff toward the principle of intellectual freedom and the following

variables:

a. Age

b. Gender

c. Experience

d. Level of library qualification

e. Other education attainment level

f. Time invested in professional development

g. Job position

h. Library association membership

i. Professional registration

j. Size of community their library serves

5. Research Design The research project used a quantitative framework employing a cross-sectional design to

investigate the attitudes and behaviours of New Zealand library staff toward intellectual

freedom via online self-completion questionnaires. Due to resource and time constraints, a

quantitative study was chosen over qualitative, which enabled a larger sample to be

surveyed in order to explore the relationship between selected variables and the attitudes

and behaviours of library staff towards intellectual freedom.

5.1. Population

The chosen target population was New Zealand public library staff. Previous studies focusing

on intellectual freedom and censorship in libraries have focused on the heads or directors of

libraries (Fiske, 1958; Curry, 1997; Ball, 1998). Mar’s (2006) research project surveyed library

association members and Busha (1972) surveyed public librarians, in both of these cases

respondents are likely to have several years of work experience and be in positions of some

responsibility. The literature review reveals that it is not just library staff that make policy

decisions or select books who have the potential to restrict intellectual freedom in their

library. Shelvers might deliberately miss-shelve controversial books in an attempt to hide

them from patrons, frontline staff might give verbal warnings to patrons about books that

have content that they think may offend or be controversial and offensive books might be

conveniently ‘lost’ (Fiske, 1958; Curry, 1997). As such this research project sought to survey

public library staff of various job positions and experience in order to gather richer

information about the variables that affect attitudes and behaviours towards intellectual

freedom.

17

5.2. Sample

There is no easily accessible sampling frame for a population of New Zealand public library

workers. The time involved in creating a list of public library workers to draw a random

representative sample from was not feasible due to the short time frame of this study.

Because these difficulties, those signed up to NZLibs and PUBSIG-l and the Te Rōpū

Whakahau email lists were used as a makeshift sampling frame for the chosen population.

The use of professional email lists has been successful in attracting respondents in previous

library and information research studies (Attebury & Holder, 2008; Julien & Genuis, 2011).

NZ-Libs is an email discussion group for library and information services in New Zealand that

many librarians are signed up to. Te Rōpū Whakahau represents Māori in the library and

information sector and the email is open to members. PUBSIG-l is the email discussion

group for the Public Library Special Interest Group of LIANZA that focuses on issues relevant

to public libraries and librarians; however LIANZA membership is not required to participate

in this list.

Those who have chosen to sign up to these professional email lists are likely to have a

certain amount of experience and commitment to the profession. Newer workers, in

positions of less responsibility, may not be signed up or even aware of these email lists. In

order to combat this imbalance snowball sampling was also used in the hope that

respondents would pass on the survey link to colleagues who are not signed up to these

professional lists. It was thought that utilising this sampling method would help to garner a

broader representative of respondents.

5.3. Data Collection

5.3.1. Instrument

Data was collected via a self-completion online questionnaire created on Qualtrics Research

Suite, the online survey tool provided by Victoria University of Wellington. The design of the

questionnaire (see Appendix B) was based on the findings of the literature review, with

questions based on similar studies by Curry (1997), Mar (2006) and Moody (2004). The

survey consisted of four sections focusing on attitudes, behaviours, opinions and

independent variables respectively.

The first section, measuring respondents’ attitudes towards intellectual freedom used one

of the most common attitude measurement techniques, a series of Likert scales.

Respondents were asked to select their level of agreement with statements on a five points

scale – strongly agree, agree, neutral, disagree and strongly disagree. These points were

given a numerical weight for coding purposes. These quantitative values were reversed

among the statements to both allow more flexibility in phrasing statements either positively

or negatively and to help identify respondents who might exhibit response sets. An open

question was also included to gain a richer understanding of respondents understanding of

the concept of intellectual freedom as it relates to libraries.

18

The second section, measuring respondents’ behaviours regarding intellectual freedom also

employed Likert type scales. Respondents were given a hypothetical book selection

situation and asked to choose an action on a four point scale – purchase, label, place on

restricted access and not purchase.

Due to the topic involved the survey was especially susceptible to social desirability bias and

results could have potentially been distorted by respondents attempting to conform to the

attitudes and behaviours that the library profession endorses. Fiske (1958) found that many

librarians would show restrictive behaviours so long as they could find a ‘legitimate,

professional’ reason to do so. As such it was thought that offering optional comment

sections after each Likert series in sections one and two might help to garner a truer

representation of attitudes and behaviours. If respondents were given the opportunity to

explain their choices that may be seen as socially undesirable they might be more inclined

to report their actual attitudes and behaviours. These optional comments were also an

additional source of valuable qualitative data.

5.3.2. Pilot Study

A small pilot study was employed to measure the validity of the survey instrument. A small

sample of individuals that work in the library and information sector were asked to

complete the survey. The results were checked to ensure statements were understood by

participants and minimal changes in phrasing were implemented as a result.

5.3.3. Distribution

The questionnaire was distributed through the professional library email lists, NZLIBS,

PUBSIG-l and Te Rōpū Whakahau. The email sent (see Appendix C) acted as a cover letter

and supplied a link to the survey. The survey was open for two weeks with two reminders

sent out as such reminders have been known to significantly increase response rates

(Bryman, 2008).

5.3.4. Incentive to Participate

An entry into the draw to win a $50 Booksellers Book Token was offered to survey

respondents to encourage participation. It is thought that the voluntary nature of surveys

may lead to response bias as there is a possibility that only individuals with strong views on

the subject may respond (Moody, 2004). This incentive to participate was offered to combat

such a response bias and also because such incentives have been known to increase

response rates (Bryman, 2008).

Once the survey had closed the email addresses given by those interested in the prize draw

were exported into Microsoft Excel. A random number was generated between 1 and 123

and the email on the spreadsheet corresponding with this number was contacted and

awarded the voucher.

19

5.4 Ethical Considerations

The School of Information Management Human Ethics Committee granted Ethics Approval.

The first page of the survey questionnaire clearly detailed the purpose of the survey, how

the data would be used and the confidentiality and anonymity of respondents in both the

collection and presentation of data was stressed. It was clearly stated that the survey was

strictly voluntary and a participant could opt out at any time simply by not completing the

survey. Email addresses that were submitted by those interested in either the prize draw or

a summary of research findings were stored in a database separate to the survey data,

ensuring respondent anonymity.

5.5. Limitations and Delimitations

The main limitation of the proposed study was due to financial and time constraints.

Because random representative sampling methods could not be used, any relationships that

are observed will not be generalisable to New Zealand public library workers as a

population. Whilst any observed relationships would be limited to the survey respondents

they could provide the groundwork for further research.

Another limitation is the willingness of individuals to take part in the survey. Due to the

voluntary nature of the survey, respondents may have especially strong views, either

positive or negative, on the subject of intellectual freedom. The offered incentive of a book

voucher is intended to minimise this kind of response bias, however this may attract

respondents who are motivated solely by the chance of winning the voucher.

The topic of intellectual freedom is also likely to inspire social desirability bias in some

respondents. This is due to the inherent value judgement surrounding intellectual freedom,

both socially and professionally, intellectual freedom is seen as ‘good’ and the restriction of

access to information, or censorship, is seen as ‘bad’.

6. Analysis and Interpretation of Data

6.1.1. Survey Response

The survey was open for two weeks, over this period 252 surveys were started and at a 68%

completion rate 172 were completed. This dropout rate of 32% is likely due to the length of

the survey, with the majority of dropouts occurring after completing the first section of the

survey. This was not surprising as Bryman (2008) had warned that long surveys could be off

putting to respondents and cause survey fatigue. Every effort was made to keep the survey

short however the desired brevity had to be balanced with the necessity of gathering

adequate data to meet the research objectives. Of the 172 completed surveys none showed

any form of response bias and as such all were usable.

6.1.2. Characteristics of Respondent Sample

There is no readily available data on the demographics of New Zealand public library

workers or New Zealand library workers in general to measure whether the survey

20

respondents are representative of the target population. However wherever possible the

results have been compared with available statistics on equivalent characteristics of library

staff in other countries.

6.1.2.1. Age

The respondents were distributed across the age range of under 25 to over 54. The majority

of respondents (63%) were over 45, the age bracket of 45-54 being the largest with 64 (37%)

participants selecting this category. This trend is generally reflective of the broader library

sector which has a comparatively older work force. For example Australian librarians over 45

represent 62% of the workforce and 58% of librarians in the USA are over 45 (Franks, 2012,

p.102).

Figure 2: Survey response by age range

6.1.2.2. Gender

There was a significant female bias with 141 female participants and just 31 male

participants. However this 82% female and 18% male gender distribution seems to be

indicative of the broader library profession as a whole. The American Library Association

member survey found that 81% of their members were female and 19% male (ALA, 2014).

Figure 3: Survey response by gender

9

20

34

64

45

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Under 25 25-34 35-44 45-54 Over 54

Age Distribution

Gender Distribution

Female (141)

Male (31)

21

6.1.2.3. Qualifications

The majority of survey participants (70%) had some form of library qualification. Of those

who selected the ‘other’ category (8%); seven stated they were currently completing a

library qualification and the others specified either a Certificate or professional registration

(RLIANZA).

Figure 4: Survey response by library qualification

Respondents were also asked to enter the date they completed their library qualification to

gauge the recency of its completion. A number of survey participants (55) did not complete

this question, as for some this question was not applicable.

As this was an open text section of the survey this data was placed into several data ranges

for analysis purposes. The completion dates of these qualifications ranged from 1967 to

2015, however the majority of the respondents that answered this question (56%) had

completed or upgraded their qualification within the last 15 years.

Figure 5: Survey response by recency of library qualification attainment

39

13

42

17

9

23

29

00

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

No LibraryQualification

Other Diploma Bachelor'sDegree

PostgraduateCertificate

PostgraduateDiploma

Masters PhD

Library Qualification Distribution

7

13

24

3432

70

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

pre 1980 1980-1989 1990-1999 2000-2009 2010-2015 In Progress

Completion Date of Library Qualification

22

Other than a library qualification, the highest qualification held by the majority of

respondents (42%) was a bachelor’s degree. Whilst 22 respondents chose the ‘other’

category their responses generally specified their highest qualification as a diploma,

certificate or a secondary school qualification.

Figure 6: Survey response by qualification attainment (other than library qualification)

*Two respondents chose not to answer this question

6.1.2.4. Library Experience and Position

The experience of the survey participants spanned from less than two years to more than 20

years in the library and information sector. Some 31% of respondents had more than 20

years experience and just 5% had worked for less than two years in the sector.

Figure 7: Survey response by years of experience in the library sector

Respondents were asked what their current job title was to gauge their level of

responsibility. As this was an open text section answers were coded into categories for

analytical purposes. These categories are intended to broadly encapsulate both the level of

43

22

71

18 15 10

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

NoQualification

Other Bachelors Honors Masters PhD

Highest Level Non-Library Qualification

9

25

3532

18

53

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Less than 2years

2-5 years 6-10 years 11-15 years 16-20 years More than20 years

Experience the Sector

23

responsibility and the potential influence this role could have over intellectual freedom in

the library.

Table 1: Definition of Library Position Categories

Paraprofessional Roles of lower responsibility such as shelver and library assistant. Those in this

category are considered to have the potential to influence intellectual freedom

in their library on a small scale through their actions such as deliberately mis-

shelving an item or warning a patron off an item that they find personally

offensive.

Professional Roles of higher responsibility such as librarian positions that require a certain

level of experience, a library qualification or professional registration.

Professionals are deemed to have the potential to influence intellectual

freedom in their library on a wider scale through acts such as selecting.

Leader/Manager Roles of a high level of responsibility that require significant experience in the

profession and generally require a library qualification and/or professional

registration. These roles are thought to have the potential to influence

intellectual freedom in their library on a wide scale. These individuals generally

train and/or influence those under them and create and/or implement library

policy.

The majority of respondents (42%) fell into the Professional category with 23% and 28% of

respondents being categorised as Paraprofessionals and Leader/Managers respectively. Two

respondents were unable to be categorised and were placed in the other category.

Figure 8: Survey response by current employment position

6.1.2.5. Professional Development

Almost all survey participants (95%) did some form of professional development, with the

majority (52%) doing 1-5 days of professional development a year.

39

72

49

2 100

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Paraprofessional Professional Leader/Manager Other No Response

Library Position

24

Figure 9: Survey response by time spent annually on professional development

6.1.2.6. LIANZA Membership and Registration

There was a fairly even split between participants who were and were not members of

LIANZA, 47% and 53% respectively. Whilst 50 respondents had RLIANZA, the majority (71%)

did not have professional registration.

Figure 10: Survey response by library association membership and professional registration

*One respondent chose not to answer this question

6.1.2.7. Population Size Served by Library

Respondents worked in libraries that serve populations of fewer than 5000 people to those

that serve over 200,000. The majority worked in libraries that serve 30,000-100,000 and

over 200,000 people (34% and 30% respectively).

9

89

31

43

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

No ProfessionalDevelopment

1-5 Days a Year 6-10 Days a Year Over 10 Days a Year

Professsional Development

LIANZA Membership

LIANZA Member(81)

Not a Mamber(91)

Professional Registration (RLIANZA)

Registered (50)

Not Registered(121)

25

Figure 11: Survey response by size of community respondent’s library serves

*11 respondents chose not to answer this question

6.2. Data Analysis and Interpretation for Objective 1

6.2.1. Quantitative Data

The first section of the survey measured the attitude of respondents towards the concept of

intellectual freedom. This was achieved through a series of five point Likert scales through

which participants indicated their level of agreement with statements about intellectual

freedom. The series of ten statements were intended to encapsulate different facets of the

concept of intellectual freedom and allude to circumstances in which attitudes towards the

concept may be tested. These five point Likert scales were given values between one and

five; these values were reversed amongst the statements to allow greater flexibility in

phrasing; either positively toward intellectual freedom or positively toward the restriction of

access to information.

Table 2: Weighted values for statements phrased to support intellectual freedom (S. 1, 2, 6, 9, 10)

Strongly Agree

(5)

Agree

(4)

Neither Agree nor

Disagree

(3)

Disagree

(2)

Strongly Disagree

(1)

Table 3: Weighted values for statements phrased to support restriction of access to information

(S. 3, 4, 5, 7, 8)

Strongly Agree

Agree

Neither Agree nor

Disagree

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

4 11

18

55

25

48

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Under 5000People

5000 - 10,000People

10,000 - 30,000People

30,000-100,000People

100,000-200,000People

Over 200,000People

Size of Community

Objective 1: To determine the attitudes of library staff towards the

principle of intellectual freedom.

26

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

The weighting of these values are intended to capture the attitude of the respondent; a high

value of five or four indicates agreement with the principles of intellectual freedom and a

low score of one or two, indicates agreement with restricting access to information.

Table 4: Statement response rate, mean, median and standard deviation of scores.

Statement N Mean

Score

Median

Score

Std.

Deviation Valid Missing

S1. Public libraries should provide their users

with access to information from a range of

sources that represent the spectrum of points of

view on topics.

172 0 4.74 5.00 .537

S2. Public libraries should resist pressure from

individuals or groups to restrict access to

information.

172 0 4.65 5.00 .671

S3. In order to avoid controversy, sometimes

libraries should restrict access to information.

172 0 4.05 4.00 .951

S4. High demand should be the primary criterion

for selecting materials for a public library

collection.

172 0 3.27 4.00 .998

S5. People have the right to be protected from

material which they might find offensive.

172 0 3.47 4.00 1.011

S6. It is appropriate for a public library collection

to include material that is acceptable under law

but that people may find offensive, such as

graphic pictures in medical, war or horror works.

172 0 4.40 4.00 .672

S7. Public librarians have a responsibility to

uphold local community standards when

selecting materials for the library collection.

172 0 3.16 3.00 .990

S8. Library materials that may offend should be

labelled with warnings.

172 0 2.66 2.00 1.066

S9. Libraries should provide users with materials

that reflect the diverse views held by society.

This includes materials that are unusual and

unpopular with the majority.

171 1 4.33 4.00 .631

S10. Public libraries play an important role in

maintaining intellectual freedom.

172 0 4.73 5.00 .457

The statements that returned the highest scores amongst respondents were those that

expressed the fundamental principles of intellectual freedom as it relates to the library

sector. Some 98% of participants either agreed or strongly agreed with statement one,

which paraphrases a key section of LIANZA’s Statement on Intellectual Freedom. This is one

of the most well-known manifestations of the application of intellectual freedom within

libraries. The second statement, which 96% of respondents either agreed or strongly agreed

with, is also outlined in LIANZA’s Statement on Intellectual Freedom and is another familiar

tenant of intellectual freedom in libraries. Over 99% of respondents agreed or strongly

27

agreed that public libraries play an important role in the preservation of intellectual

freedom (statement 10).

Whilst there was a high level of agreement with the fundamental ethics of intellectual

freedom, there was a lower level of agreement with statements that reiterated the same

core concepts but introduced potential real world implications. Statements six, nine and

three referred to the practical application of the principles of intellectual freedom but

implied that such actions could potentially be unpopular or cause offence and controversy.

Whilst 83% of participants disagreed or strongly disagreed with statement three, 11% of

respondents expressed agreement with restriction of access in order to avoid controversy.

The attitudes of respondents towards statements four, five and seven returned some of the

lowest scores amongst respondents. These statements alluded to the obligations that the

literature review revealed some library staff felt towards patrons and stakeholders. Some

22% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that people have the right to be protected

from material they might find offensive and a further 22% neither agreed nor disagreed.

Whilst over half of the respondents disagreed with statement four, some 27% of

respondents agreed or strongly agreed that high demand should be the primary criterion for

selection. Some 28% of participants agreed or strongly agreed with statement seven, that

public librarians have a responsibility to uphold community standards when selecting

materials and a further 30% neither agreed nor disagreed.

The statement that elicited the lowest score amongst respondents was statement eight that

asserted that library materials that may offend should be labelled with warnings. Some 53%

of respondents either agreed or strongly agreed with labelling potentially offensive items

and only 26% disagreed or strongly disagreed with such an action.

Figure 12: Responses to statements 1-10

*There were 171 responses to Statement 9

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 S9 S10

Frequencyn172*

Statement

Attitudes Towards Intellectual Freedom

5: High IF 4: Moderate IF 3: Neutral 2: Moderate RA 1: High RALegend: values indicating level of agreement with intllectual freedom (IF) or restriction of access (RA)

28

6.2.2. Qualitative Data

Two open text questions were included in the first section of the survey. Whilst not included

in the statistical measurement of respondent attitudes these comments added valuable

additional data about general attitudes towards intellectual freedom.

At the end of the series of attitude scales participants were given the option to comment or

elaborate further upon their responses, 56 chose to respond. Many commented that their

responses applied to adults and if certain questions were applied to children they would

respond differently. Restricted areas and warning labels were considered appropriate by

some respondents in order to protect children from offensive material. Whilst some

believed that the library should protect children from offensive material others believed all

patrons should be protected from what they may find offensive through ‘informative’

labelling. One respondent stated that labelling, whilst against their better judgement, was

preferable to the complaints they might otherwise receive. It was also suggested that

material that may offend should not be actively displayed to avoid both causing offense and

attracting complaints.

Several comments suggested that budgetary or space constraints meant that providing a

broad range of material representing the spectrum of views on a topic was not always

possible. One commenter suggested that budgetary constraints coupled with obligation to

ratepayers meant materials often cater to the largest portion of the community and

resources reflecting the ‘peripheries’ of the community may be underrepresented. Several

comments spoke of the difficulty of defining what is offensive and others mentioned the

subjectivity and indefinability of community standards. There were also several comments

that expanded upon the complexity of practically applying intellectual freedom especially

when balancing the needs and demands of stakeholders. Finally, the need to educate the

public on the library’s role, with regards to intellectual freedom, was cited.

To gain a broader understanding of participant attitudes respondents were asked, in an

open text question, what the principle of intellectual freedom meant to them as it relates to

public libraries. The 153 responses were qualitatively analysed for themes and ten broad

themes were identified (see figure 13).

29

Figure 13: Themes identified from survey respondent’s understanding of intellectual freedom as it

relates to public libraries

The majority of answers given by respondents incorporated the fundamental principles of

intellectual freedom as it relates to public libraries; primarily open access to information and

provision of material representing all points of view. Many respondents also equated

intellectual freedom with the absence of censorship. The neutrality of the library, especially

politically, and the impartiality of library staff was also a strong theme. Another identified

theme was the library being an open, accepting space with staff exhibiting zero judgement

in regards to the information patrons seek. Many participants also highlighted the important

role of intellectual freedom in the library sector and the duty public library staff have to

uphold this ideal. Answers also equated intellectual freedom with the freedom of choice

and with the free (monetarily) and equitable access to information. Another theme was

providing access to accurate, reliable or informative information. Finally, a handful of

answers provided the caveat that open access and the provision of a broad range of

materials that represent the spectrum of viewpoints needed to be within the bounds of the

law.

6.3. Data Analysis and Interpretation of Objective 2

6.3.1. Quantitative Data

To gauge the intended behaviours of respondents in regards to applying the concept of

intellectual freedom in practice a hypothetical situation was included in the survey.

15

5

13

25

37

18

72

8

68

16

Equitable access

Free access (monetary)

Freedom of choice

Neutral/impartial library and staff

No censorhsip/restriction

No judgement

Providing a spectrum of points of views

Providing accurate/realiable/informative information

Open access

Responsibility of public library and staff to maintain

Survey Participant's Understanding of Intellectual Freedom

Objective 2: To determine the intended behaviours of library staff

regarding intellectual freedom

30

Participants were asked to consider 15 items and asked how they would treat them if they

were in charge of acquisitions for a new public library situated in the community they

currently work in. It was explained that there were no budgetary or space limitations or

collection policies regarding the types of material that should be included in the library’s

collection. Respondents could choose from one of four actions for each item, these actions

were scored to measure the tendencies of each participant towards the principles of

intellectual freedom or censorship. The subject matter of the items participants were asked

to consider for selection was chosen to reflect a range of potentially contentious issues.

Items of a violent, racist and religious nature were chosen alongside materials that run

counter to broadly accepted, mainstream information and items that touched on illegal

activities.

If library staff were inclined to carry out the principles of intellectual freedom in practice,

they would choose to purchase each of the items given in the hypothetical scenario.

Labelling is considered to restrict intellectual freedom as the practice can prejudice the

reader against a work before they even look at it, by essentially imposing the opinions and

biases of the labeller upon the reader (Moony, 2004). Curtailing physical access to items has

been identified by several studies as a widespread means of censoring materials within the

library (Fiske, 1958; Curry, 1997; Busha, 1972). Finally choosing not to purchase an item in a

scenario where there are no budget, space or policy restrictions runs counter to the

principles of intellectual freedom and is the strongest form of censorship.

Answers were scored as follows: ‘purchase’ 4 points, ‘purchase and label’ 3 points,

‘purchase and place on restricted access’ 2 points, ‘not purchase’ 1 point. The highest score

of four indicates alignment with the principles of intellectual freedom, lower scores of one

to three indicate varying levels of restrictive tendencies, a score of one being the most

restrictive or censorious. Table 5 displays participant answers and the mean score for each

item.

Table 5: Hypothetical selection scenarios, respondent actions, mean and standard deviation of

scores

Item Purchase

(4)

Purchase

- label (3)

Purchase -

restricted

access (2)

Not

Purchase

(1)

No

Response

Mean

Score

Standard

deviation

1. A novel that depicts Māori in

a stereotypical way.

135 16 1 20 0 3.55 0.98

2. A book that is critical of the

generally accepted account of

the first people who

discovered New Zealand.

161 8 1 2 0 3.91 0.41

3. A book that is critical of the

generally accepted information

about the Jewish Holocaust.

126 27 5 13 1 3.56 0.88

4. An autobiography of a 138 20 6 8 0 3.67 0.76

31

member of the militant Islamic

fundamentalist group, the

Islamic State (ISIS).

5. A non-fiction book critical of

Islamic fundamentalism.

146 17 5 4 0 3.77 0.61

6. A non-fiction book critical of

the Catholic Church.

155 14 1 2 0 3.87 0.44

7. A book providing instruction

for the traditional practice of

witchcraft (Wicca).

154 12 4 2 0 3.85 0.5

8. A book promoting the

practice of polygamy.

128 20 3 20 1 3.5 1

9. A magazine, aimed at

teenagers, providing assistance

to homosexual people in

‘coming out’.

162 6 2 2 0 3.91 0.42

10. A guide to gay parenting. 164 4 2 2 0 3.92 0.41

11. A ‘how-to’ guide for

extreme anarchism.

80 26 20 46 0 2.81 1.28

12. A book advocating

revolution, both peaceful and

violent.

124 21 11 16 0 3.47 0.97

13. A book about the

production and use of

hallucinogenics and narcotics.

66 25 22 56 1 2.58 1.31

14. A magazine promoting the

anti-vaccination movement.

131 13 5 22 1 3.48 1.04

15. An autobiography of an

individual who assisted a family

member in ending their life.

150 15 5 2 0 3.82 0.53

Restrictive actions of labelling, closed access and not purchasing were taken against each of

the 15 items that respondents were asked to consider. Labelling was the most common

restrictive action chosen, closely followed by choosing to not purchase the item altogether.

A total of 48 respondents (28%) chose to purchase all items, showing a complete alignment

with the ideal of intellectual freedom. With the exception of two items the majority of

respondents selected the option to purchase the material. Over 90% chose to purchase

items 2, 6, 9 and 10, and 70-90% selected this option for the other items. The exceptions

were items 11 and 13, a ‘how to’ guide to extreme anarchism and a book about the

production and use of hallucinagenics and narcotics. These scored the lowest means of 2.81

and 2.58 respectively. Some 27% chose not to purchase item 11 and 33% to not purchase

item 12.

6.3.2. Qualitative Data

At the end of the hypothetical selection scenario participants were given the opportunity to

comment or clarify their choices. These 81 comments revealed additional information about

32

the behaviours and attitudes of participants but were not included in the statistical

measurement of respondent behaviours.

Many responses indicated a concern of the legality of the subject matter of some items

which was the reason behind the rejection, restriction or labelling of the item. The two

items of most concern to commenters in this regard were the two least selected items, 11

and 13. Items 8 and 12 promoting polygamy and advocating revolution also sparked

concerns of legality. An issue with several commenters was that these items either

instructed how to commit criminal actions or promoted illegal activities. For example one

responder stated that they would have selected a biography on the subject of polygamy but

would not select an item promoting polygamy because it is illegal. Several believed that it

would be illegal for the library to have material that promotes illegal activity. Comments

revealed a conflict between the principles of intellectual freedom and a strong sense of

responsibility toward patrons and the community with concerns that materials exploring

illegal activity could be harmful to wider society. Individuals who chose to purchase these

items clarified that this was under the assumption that the works had passed the Chief

Censor.

Another strong theme was commenters choosing not to purchase items due to the quality

or accuracy of the item. One commentator stated that whilst they might purchase a book

about anti-vaccination, because it is likely to contain factual information, they would not

purchase a magazine on the subject as it is more likely to be ‘propaganda’. Another

commentator expressed concern over self-published works that had not gone through

‘editorial scrutiny’. It was also stressed that it was important the items were factual,

reasoned and backed up with evidence rather than ‘mere opinion and conjecture’.

Many mentioned that they would choose to purchase the items on the provision that there

were other items in the collection to provide balanced points of view. Several touched on

the conflict they felt when considering some items with one commenter stating that “I

agree in principle that libraries should provide a range of viewpoints but I find it hard to

justify buying books that condone racism.” Several said that in reality they would require

more information to make a decision and they would be guided by reviews, collection

policies and would discuss particularly contentious items with colleagues. Some participants

revealed that they chose to place items on restricted access that they thought would be

high targets for theft and others stated that whilst they would purchase some items they

would not actively promote or display them.

6.4. Testing of Hypothesis 1

Hypothesis 1: There is no significant relationship between the attitudes

and behaviours of library staff towards the principle of intellectual

freedom.

33

The hypothesis was stated negatively, reflecting the opposite of what the researcher

expected. It was anticipated that the attitudes of individuals towards intellectual freedom

would inform their behaviours when practically applying the concept.

To measure the relationship between the attitudes and behaviours, the scores of each

respondent from the attitude scale were totalled as were the scores from the hypothetical

selection scenario. In both cases a high score indicated alignment with the principles of

intellectual freedom and a low score indicated restrictive tendencies. The behaviour test

had four missed answers (see Table 5) and the attitude test had one (see Table 4). Rather

than discard the remaining responses from those participants with missing answers, the

mean value scored for each of the missing scenarios or statements was substituted for the

purpose of data analysis.

The internal consistency of the attitude and behaviour tests were measured with

Cronbach’s alpha. When using Cronbach’s alpha, hypothetically, the perfect degree of

reliability would be one. Typically, acceptable internal reliability requires a figure of 0.80

however, lower figures of 0.70 and 0.60 have also been considered as ‘good’ internal

reliability (Bryman, 2008). Both tests were shown to have good internal reliability, with the

attitude test returning an alpha of 0.69 and the behaviour test an alpha of 0.80.

Table 6: Total Mean Score, Standard Deviation and Reliability Coefficient of Behaviour and

Attitude Tests

Measure Attitude Behaviour

Mean 39.47 53.66

Standard Deviation 4.23 6.37

Cronbach Alpha Coefficient 0.688 0.801

The scatter plot (Figure 14) illustrates the linear relationship between the attitude and

behaviour scores. Individuals with high attitude scores are generally shown to have high

behaviour scores. The scatterplot also reveals some discrepancy between attitude and

behaviour scores both positive and negative. A number of participants with lower attitude

scores had comparatively high behaviour scores and conversely a number had higher

attitude scores and comparatively low behaviour scores. Participants that showed no

restrictive behaviours in the hypothetical situation, scoring 100%, had attitude scores

ranging from 55-100%.

34

Figure 14: Scatterplot of linear relationship between total respondent attitude and behaviour

scores

To test the hypothesis Pearson’s correlation coefficient (r) was calculated through SPSS

software on the totalled attitude and behaviour scores of participants. Pearson’s r was used

as it measures and numerically illustrates the linear relationship between two variables. An r

value close to one indicates a strong relationship between variables; conversely a value

close to zero indicates a weak relationship. The level of correlation between attitudes and

behaviours was interpreted with Evans’ (1996) guide (see Table 7).

Table 7: Interpretation of correlation coefficients for testing of null-hypotheses

Magnitude of r Interpretation

00-.19 Very weak

.20-.39 Weak

.40-.59 Moderate

.60-.79 Strong

.80-1.0 Very strong

It was determined that a statistical significance of 0.05 was required to reject the null

hypothesis. Significance is determined by the p value, which indicates the probability of

obtaining a result that is either equal to or more extreme than what was observed in the

sample population. A p value of .05 or lower indicates that there is a 5% chance that the

observed relationship could have happened by chance.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Behaviour Score (displayed as percentage)

Attitude Score (displayed as percentage)

Attitude and Behaviour Scores

35

The calculated results of the Pearson coefficient are shown in Table 8. The Pearson

correlation showed a moderate positive correlation between participants attitude and

behaviour scores, which was statistically significant(r=.437, n=172, p<0.0005). This r value

suggests that as the attitude scores of respondents increase so do their behaviour scores, or

more specifically, 19% of the time staff attitudes towards the principles of intellectual

freedom positively align with their behaviours when practically applying the concept.

Table 8: Correlation Coefficient and Significance for Hypothesis 1

Total Behaviour

Score

Total Attitude

Score

Total Behaviour

Score

Pearson

Correlation

1 .437**

Sig. (2-tailed) .000

N 172 172

Total Attitude

Score

Pearson

Correlation

.437** 1

Sig. (2-tailed) .000

N 172 172

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

With the results of the coefficient correlation having a p value lower than the required 0.05,

the results can be considered statistically significant. Thus the null hypothesis can be

rejected and an alternative hypothesis accepted. There is real, albeit moderate, relationship

between the attitudes and behaviours of library staff towards the principles of intellectual

freedom.

6.5. Testing of Hypothesis 2

As with hypothesis one, hypothesis two was stated negatively, the opposite of what was

expected. To test the hypothesis analysis of variance (ANOVA) was calculated through SPSS

Hypothesis 2: There is no significant relationship between: (i) the attitudes and

(ii) the behaviours of library staff toward the principle of intellectual freedom and

the following variables:

a. Age

b. Gender

c. Experience

d. Level of library qualification

e. Other education attainment level

f. Time invested in professional development

g. Job position

h. Library association membership

i. Professional registration

j. Size of community their library serves

36

software on both the totalled attitude and totalled behaviour scores of participants and

each of the predetermined variables. One-way ANOVA compares the means between

groups by determining whether these means differ significantly from one another. If the null

hypothesis is true ANOVA will return an F ratio value close to 1.0, a large F value indicates

that there is more variation amongst the tested groups than would be expected by chance.

If there is a significant difference between the means it can be inferred that the tested

variable has an effect on the dependent variable of either behaviour or attitude. A level of

significance of 0.05 was again required to reject the null hypothesis.

Whilst ANOVA will show if there is a difference between at least two groups it does not

indicate which specific groups are significantly different. To ascertain which specific groups

differ significantly from one another a post hoc test, Tukey’s honest significant difference

(HSD) test, was carried in the instance that ANOVA revealed a significant difference

between the measured variables.

Table 9: Results of ANOVA, inferred relationship and statistical significance of tested variables

Independent

Variable

Dependent

Variable

ANOVA Result Inferred Relationship Statistically

Significant

Age Attitude F(4,167)=.625,

p=.645

Age has no effect on attitudes. No

Behaviour F(4,167)=1.213,

p=.307

Age has a small effect on

behaviours.

No

Gender Attitude F(1,170)=.075,

p=.785

Gender has no effect on attitudes. No

Behaviour F(1,170)=.600,

p=.440

Gender has no effect on

behaviours.

No

Experience Attitude F(5,166)=1.784,

p=.119

Experience in the sector has a small

effect on attitudes.

No


p=.218

Experience in the sector has a small

effect on behaviours.

No

Highest

Library

Qualification

Attitude F(6,165)=3.440,

p=.003

Library qualification level has an


Yes


p=.05

Library qualification level has an


Yes

Other

Education

Attainment

Level

Attitude F(5,164)=.937,

p=.458

Qualification level has no effect on

attitudes.

No


p=.540

Qualification level has no effect on

behaviours.

No

Job Position Attitude F(3, 156)=2.047,

p=.109

The employment position of staff

has some effect on attitudes.

No

Behaviour F(3, 156)=2.413,

p=.069

The employment position of staff

has some effect on behaviours.

No

37

The analysis of variance revealed a statistically significant variation between the attitude

(p.003) and behaviour (p.05) scores of respondents based on their library qualification level.

The post-hoc Tukey test showed a statistically significant difference between the attitude

scores of respondents with no library qualification and those with either a Bachelor’s degree

(p.029) or a Master’s degree (p.004); those with no library qualification returning a lower

attitude score. The post-hoc test on behaviour scores revealed a statistically significant

difference between those with a Postgraduate Certificate and either a Diploma of (p.049) or

a Masters (p.041); participants with a Postgraduate Certificate having a lower behaviour

score. A statistically significant difference of p.037 was also found between the attitudes of

participants who did and did not have professional registration. However there was no

statistical difference between those that do and do not possess professional registration

and behaviours.

The results of the analysis of variance show that part of the hypothesis can be rejected and

the alternative hypothesis proffered that there is a statistically significant relationship

between the attitudes and behaviours of library staff toward the principle of intellectual

freedom and their level of library qualification and also their attitudes and professional

registration. However the majority of the hypothesis can be accepted. There is no significant

relationship between: (i) the attitudes and (ii) the behaviours of library staff toward the

principle of intellectual freedom and the following variables: a) age, b) gender, c)

experience, d) education attainment level (other than library qualification), e) time invested

in professional development, f) job position, g) library association membership, h) size of

Professional

Development

Attitude F(3,168)=1.420,

p=.239

Professional development has

small effect on attitudes.

No


p=.214

Professional development has

small effect on behaviours.

No

LIANZA

Membership

Attitude F(1,170)=.037,

p=.847

LIANZA membership has no effect

on attitudes.

No


p=.176

LIANZA membership appears to

have a slight effect on behaviours.

No

Professional

Registration

Attitude F(1,169)=4.42,

p=.037

Professional Registration has an


Yes


p=.098

Professional Registration seems to

have some effect on behaviours.

No

Size of

Community

Library Serves

Attitude F(5,155)=1.945,

p=.090

The size of the community that

library staff work in appears to

have a small effect on attitude.

No


p=.118

The size of the community that

library staff work in appears to

have a small effect on behaviours.

No

38

community their library serves. There is also no significant relationship between the

behaviour of staff and professional registration.

6.6. Data Analysis and Testing of Objective 4

Whilst the majority of variables tested for hypothesis two were proven to not be statistically

significant many of the variables had ANOVA results with an F value indicating some kind of

effect upon the independent variables. To explore these relationships the mean and

standard error (denoted by a vertical bar) of each tested variable is graphically illustrated

below. If the means differ between the groups of the variable being tested and there is no

overlap of standard error bars it can be assumed that the variable has some effect upon the

attitude and/or behaviour scores.

The mean and standard errors of respondent age groups over 26 years all overlap with little

difference in scores. However those under the age of 25 have a lower attitude score and the

standard error does not overlap with age groups over 35. It can be inferred that

respondents under 25 do not agree with, or more likely do not understand, the principles of

intellectual freedom to the degree of other age groups.

Figure 15: Mean and standard error of total attitude scores by age group

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Under 25 25-34 35-44 45-54 Over 54

Attitude and Age

Objective 3: To explore the relationship between certain variables

related to education and experience and the attitudes and

behaviours of library staff towards intellectual freedom.

39

Figure 16: Mean and standard error of total behaviour scores by age group

There is minimal difference between the means of the attitude and behaviour scores

between genders and the standard error bars can be seen to overlap in both cases. As such

no relationship between gender and attitudes and behaviours regarding intellectual

freedom can be inferred.

Figure 17: Mean and standard error of total attitude scores by gender

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

Under 25 25-34 35-44 45-54 Over 54

Behaviour and Age

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Female Male

Attitude and Gender

40

Figure 18: Mean and standard error of total behaviour scores by gender

Participants with less than two years experience in the library sector had the lowest mean

scores for both attitude and behaviour. In both instances the standard error bars do not

overlap with those groups with six or more years experience. As such it can be inferred that

experience positively affects both attitudes and behaviours relating to intellectual freedom.

However this effect appears to plateau after around five years experience.

Figure 19: Mean and standard error of total attitude scores by experience

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

Female Male

Behaviour and Gender

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Less than 2years


Attitude and Expierience

41

Figure 20: Mean and standard error of total behaviour scores by experience

There appears to be a positive relationship between attitudes and behaviours and

possession of a library qualification. The graph shows that participants with a library

qualification hold more positive attitudes to intellectual freedom than those with no library

degree, with Master and Bachelor’s degree holders having the highest attitude scores. The

one anomaly was respondents who have a Postgraduate Certificate; this mean score is

clearly lower than that of the other qualifications. The standard error bars of the Bachelor’s

Degree and Masters do not overlap with the standard error bar of the Postgraduate

Certificate. The graph illustrating the relationship between behaviour and library

qualification also shows library qualification holders to have higher mean scores than those

without a library qualification. There is no overlap between the two error bars of those with

no qualification and those with a Masters. Participants who hold a Postgraduate Certificate

can be seen to have considerably lower behaviour scores with no overlap of error bars,

indicating more restrictive tendencies than all other respondents, including those with no

library qualification.

Figure 21: Mean and standard error of total attitude scores by library qualification

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

Less than 2years


Behaviour and Experience

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

No libraryqualification

Diploma Bachelor'sDegree


PostgraduateDiploma

Masters Other

Attitude and Library Qualification

42

Figure 22: Mean and standard error of total behaviour scores by library qualification

There is little variation between the mean behaviour and attitude scores and qualification

level with the standard error of all groups overlapping. As such it can be inferred that

qualifications that are unrelated to the library sector have no effect on the attitudes or

behaviours of staff towards intellectual freedom.

Figure 23: Mean and standard error of total attitude scores by other qualifications

*PhD was not included as only one respondent possessed one

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

No libraryqualification

Diploma Bachelor'sDegree


PostgraduateDiploma

Masters Other

Behaviour and Library Qualification

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

No qualification Bachelors Honors Masters Other

Attitude and Other Qualifications

43

Figure 24: Mean and standard error of total behaviour scores by other qualification

*PhD was not included as only one respondent possessed one

Professional development appears to have an effect on both the behaviour and attitudes of

library staff towards intellectual freedom. The mean behaviour and attitude scores of those

who do no professional development are lower than those who do, with no overlap of

standard error bars. However the amount of time spent on professional development

appears to have no effect with mean scores and standard error margins of these groups all

overlapping.

Figure 25: Mean and standard error of total attitude scores by professional development

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

No qualification Bachelors Honors Masters Other

Behaviour and Other Qualifications

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

I don't do anyprofessionaldevelopment

1-5 days per year 6-10 days per year Over 10 days peryear

Attitude and Professional Development

44

Figure 26: Mean and standard error of total behaviour scores by professional development

The position of staff appears to have some effect on attitudes towards intellectual freedom,

with leader/managers returning a higher mean score and no overlap of standard error with

the scores of paraprofessionals and professionals. The mean behaviour score of the

leader/manager group was also higher and whilst the standard error did not overlap with

the professional group it did with the paraprofessional mean score.

Figure 27: Mean and standard error of total attitude and behaviour scores by library position

The attitude and behaviour of respondents does not seem to be affected by library

association membership with little variation in mean scores and overlap with standard error

in both instances.

15202530354045505560

I don't do anyprofessionaldevelopment

1-5 days per year 6-10 days per year Over 10 days peryear

Behaviour and Professional Development

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Paraprofessional Professional Leader/Manager

Attitude and Library Position

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

Paraprofessional Professional Leader/Manager

Behaviour and Library Position

45

Figure 28: Mean and standard error of total attitude and behaviour scores by library association

membership

There is a difference between the attitude and behaviour scores of those with and without

professional registration with no overlap of standard error. However in both cases this

variance is a single point.

Figure 29: Mean and standard error of total attitude and behaviour scores by professional

association

There is some variation between both attitude and behaviour scores dependent upon the

size of the community the participant works in. Those who work in a community of less than

5000 people returned a lower attitude and behaviour mean score. The lack of overlap of the

standard error bars show that participants that work in a community of over 100,000 people

are more likely to have attitudes and behaviours that align with the principles of intellectual

freedom than those who work in a community of less than 5000 people.

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Yes No

Attitude and Library Association Membership

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

Yes No

Behaviour and Library Association Membership

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Yes No

Attitude and Professional Regsitration

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

Yes No

Behaviour and Professional Registration

46

Figure 30: Mean and standard error of total attitude scores by community size

Figure 31: Mean and standard error of total attitude scores by community size

6.7. Data Analysis and Testing of Objective 4

The third section of the survey included a series of questions intended to assess the role

that library associations and employers play in the formation of the attitudes of library staff

toward intellectual freedom and how they practically apply these principles. ANOVA and

graphic representations of mean and standard errors were used to explore the extent to

which variables relating to employers and library associations have an effect on the

attitudes and behaviours of library staff.

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Under 5,000people

5,000 - 10,000 people

10,000 - 30,000 people

30,000 -100,000people

100,000 -200,000people

Over 200,000people

Attitude and Community Size

15202530354045505560

Under 5,000people

5,000 - 10,000 people

10,000 - 30,000 people

30,000 -100,000people

100,000 -200,000people

Over 200,000people

Behaviour and Community Size

Objective 4: To explore the extent that the attitudes and behaviours of library

staff toward intellectual freedom are influenced by library associations and

employers.

47

Q. Are you aware of the 2002 Library and Information Association of

New Zealand (LIANZA) Statement on Intellectual Freedom?

Some 27% of respondents were not aware of the statement on intellectual freedom that has

been put out by LIANZA. However the mean behaviour and attitude scores and overlap of

standard means implies that awareness of this statement has no effect on the attitudes and

behaviours of staff toward intellectual freedom.

Figure 32: Respondent awareness of LIANZA's statement on intellectual freedom

Figure 33: Mean and standard error of total attitude and behaviour scores by awareness of

LIANZA's statement on intellectual freedom


respondent awareness of LIANZA's statement on intellectual freedom

Awareness of LIANZA's Statement

Yes, 125

No, 47

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Yes No

Attitude and Awareness of LIANZA Statement

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

Yes No

Behaviour and Awareness of LIANZA Statement

Independent

Variable

Dependent

Variable


Significant

Awareness of

LIANZA

Attitude F(1,170)=.273,

p=.602

Awareness of the LIANZA

Statement on intellectual freedom

No

48

Q. In your opinion can the sentiments expressed in this statement be

realistically applied in a practical work situation?

The majority of respondents, 88%, thought LIANZA’s Statement on Intellectual Freedom

could be practically applied. The 43% of respondents that answered ‘definitely yes,’ scored

higher mean attitude and behaviour scores.

Figure 34: Respondent opinion of practicality of LIANZA's Statement on Intellectual Freedom

Figure 35: Mean and standard error of total attitude scores by opinion of practicality of LIANZA's

Statement

73 76

137

10

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Definitely Yes Probably Yes Maybe Probably not Definitely not

Opinion as to whether LIANZA Statement can be practically applied

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Definitely yes Probably yes Maybe Probably not

Attitude and opinion whether LIANZA's Statement can be practically applied

Statement on

Intellectual

Freedom

has no effect on attitudes.


p=.769

Awareness of the LIANZA

Statement on intellectual freedom

has no effect on behaviours.

No

49

Figure 36: Mean and standard error of total behaviour scores by opinion on practicality of

LIANZA's statement


respondent opinion on practicality of LIANZA's statement on intellectual freedom

Q. Would this statement be helpful to refer to when you are confronted

with a work situation that concerns intellectual freedom?

Over half of the participants (59%) thought LIANZA’s statement would be of use when

confronted with a situation concerning intellectual freedom at work. Opinion as to the

usefulness of LIANZA’s statement seemed to have a positive, statistically significant effect

on respondent attitude scores. Those that had the definite belief that the statement would

be of help had higher attitude scores than other respondents. However there was not a

significant difference in their behaviour scores with the standard error scores overlapping

with the other respondent groups.

15

25

35

45

55


Behaviour and opinion whether LIANZA's Statement can be practically applied

Independent

Variable

Dependent

Variable


Significant

Opinion as to

whether

LIANZA

Statement

can be

practically

applied

Attitude F(4,165)=2.852,

p=.025

Opinion as to whether the LIANZA

statement on intellectual freedom

can be practically applied has some


No


p=.019

Opinion as to whether the LIANZA

statement on intellectual freedom

can be practically applied has some


No

50

Figure 37: Respondent opinion of usefulness of LIANZA's Statement on Intellectual Freedom in a

work situation

Figure 38: Mean and standard error of total attitude scores by opinion of usefulness of LIANZA's

Statement

Figure 39: Mean and standard error of total behaviour scores by opinion of usefulness of LIANZA's

Statement

100

57

121 0

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Definitely Yes Probably Yes Maybe Probably Not Definitely Not

Opinion if LIANZA's Statement would be helpful in a work situation that concerns intellectual freedom

10

20

30

40

50

Definitely yes Probably yes Maybe

Attitude and opinion whether LIANZA's Statement would be helpful in work situation

15

25

35

45

55

Definitely yes Probably yes Maybe

Behaviour and opinion whether LIANZA's Statement would be helpful in work situations

51


respondent on usefulness of LIANZA's Statement on Intellectual Freedom in a work situation

Q. Are you satisfied with the direction and support given by LIANZA in

regards to intellectual freedom?

The majority of respondents were satisfied with the direction and support given by LIANZA

regarding intellectual freedom, with just three participants feeling dissatisfied. The level of

satisfaction appeared to have a positive, statistically significant effect on respondent

attitude scores. Those who were ‘very satisfied’ had higher attitude scores than other

groups, with the exception of the dissatisfied respondents which had the widest standard

error margin that overlapped with the other groups. However the respondent groups had

overlapping standard error margins for their behaviour scores implying that the perceived

support and direction staff receive from their library association has no effect on behaviour.

Independent

Variable

Dependent

Variable


Significant

Opinion as to

whether

LIANZA’s

Statement on

Intellectual

Freedom

would be

helpful In a

work

situation

Attitude F(3,166)=5.531,

p=.001

Opinion as to the usefulness of

LIANZA’s statement when directly

confronted with situation

concerning intellectual freedom at

work has a statistically significant


Yes


p=.348

Opinion as to the usefulness of

LIANZA’s statement when directly

confronted with situation

concerning intellectual freedom at

work has a slight effect on

behaviours.

No

52

Figure 40: Respondent satisfaction with direction and support given by LIANZA on intellectual

freedom

Figure 41: Mean and standard error of total attitude scores by satisfaction with direction and

support given by LIANZA on intellectual freedom

Figure 42: Mean and standard error of total behaviour scores by satisfaction with direction and

support given by LIANZA on intellectual freedom

44

74

50

3 00

20

40

60

80

Very Satisfied Satisfied Neutral Dissatisfied VeryDissatisfied

Level of satisfaction with direction and support given by LIANZA

10

20

30

40

50

Very Satisfied Satisfied Neutral Dissatisfied

Attitude and satisfaction with direction and support given by LIANZA

15

25

35

45

55


Behaviour and satisfaction with direction and support given by LIANZA

53


respondent satisfaction with support and direction given by library association

Q. Have you had any on the job training regarding intellectual freedom?

Less than 20% of survey respondents had received on the job training on the subject of

intellectual freedom. However on the job training was shown to have a positive, statistically

significant effect on respondent attitude scores. The difference in mean score and lack of

overlap between the standard error margins indicates that this training could have some

effect on behaviours as well.

Figure 43: Respondent completion of training for intellectual freedom offered by their employer

On the job training for intellectual freedom

Yes, 33

No, 138

Independent

Variable

Dependent

Variable


Significant

Satisfaction

with support

and direction

given by

LIANZA

Attitude F(3,167)=3.628,

p=.014

Perceived support and direction

from LIANZA has a statistically

significant effect on attitudes.

Yes


p=.504

Perceived support and direction

from LIANZA has no effect on

behaviours.

No

54

Figure 44: Mean and standard error of total attitude and behaviour scores by completion of

intellectual freedom training offered by employer

Table 14: Results of ANOVA, inferred relationship and statistical significance of variable of on the

job training

Q. Does your library have a policy that states its stance on intellectual freedom?

Just over 40% of the respondent’s libraries had policies outlining their stance on intellectual

freedom, however 45% of respondents did not know if their library had such a policy.

Awareness of library policy seems to have a positive, statistically significant, effect on

attitude and the overall mean score and standard error margin being higher than the other

groups indicates a possible effect on behaviour as well.

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Yes No

Attitude and on the job training

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

Yes No

Behaviour and on the job training

Independent

Variable

Dependent

Variable


Significant

On the job

training

Attitude F(1,169)=6.604,

p=.011

On the job training has a

statistically significant effect on

attitudes.

Yes


p=.153

On the job training has some effect

on behaviours.

No

55

Figure 45: Respondent awareness of library policy stating their stance on intellectual freedom

Figure 46: Mean and standard error of total attitude scores by awareness of library policy on

intellectual freedom

Figure 47: Mean and standard error of total behaviour scores by awareness of library policy on


71

22

79

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Yes No Not Sure

Library policy that states stance on intellectual freedom

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Yes No Not Sure

Attitude and library has policy

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

Yes No Not Sure

Behaviour and library has policy

56


respondent awareness of library's policy on intellectual freedom

Q. Do you refer to this when confronted with situations that might

potentially infringe intellectual freedom?

The majority of respondents whose library had a policy on intellectual freedom did refer to

this when confronted with situations relating to intellectual freedom. Just under 30%

referred to this policy regularly (‘often’ or ‘all of the time’) with only 8 never using such a

policy. The use or referral to library policy appears to have no effect on either attitudes or

behaviours with the mean scores and standard error margins of all groups overlapping.

Figure 48: Respondent use of library policy on intellectual freedom

8

21 21

11 10

0

5

10

15

20

25

Never Rarely Sometimes Often All of the time

Do you refer to your library's policy when cnfronted with situations that might potentially infringe intellectual

freedom

Independent

Variable

Dependent

Variable


Significant

Library Policy

on

intellectual

freedom

Attitude F(2,169)=3.473,

p=.033

Awareness of library policy has

some effect on attitudes.

Yes


p=.146

Awareness of library policy has a

minimal effect on behaviours.

No

57

Figure 49: Mean and standard error of total attitude scores by use of library policy on intellectual

freedom

Figure 50: Mean and standard error of total behaviour scores by use of library policy on



respondent use of library's policy

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Never Rarely Sometimes Often All of the Time

Attitude and use of policy

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

Never Rarely Sometimes Often All of the Time

Behaviour and use of policy

Independent

Variable

Dependent

Variable


Significant

Refer to

Library Policy

when in work

situation

concerning IF

Attitude F(4,66)=1.733,

p=.153

Referral to/use of policy has

minimal effect on attitudes

No


p=.696

Referral to/use of policy has no

effect on behaviour.

No

58

Q. Are you satisfied with the direction and support given by your

employer in regards to intellectual freedom?

The majority, over 50%, of respondents were satisfied with the direction and support given

by their employer with just 4% being dissatisfied. The respondent satisfaction level appears

to have a positive, statistically significant, effect on attitudes with those who were very

satisfied having higher scores than other groups. Whilst not statistically significant,

perceived support and direction given by the employer also appears to affect behaviours in

the same way. The only exception was those who were dissatisfied with the direction and

support given by their employer, this group had the widest standard error margin which

overlapped with the other groups.

Figure 51: Respondent satisfaction with direction and support given by employer in regards to


Figure 52: Mean and standard error of total attitude scores by level of satisfaction with direction

and support given by employer regarding intellectual freedom

20

7669

70

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Very Satisfied Satisfied Neutral Dissatisfied VeryDissatisfied

Satisfaction with direction and support given by employer

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50


Attitude and satisfication with direction and support given by employer

59

Figure 53: Mean and standard error of total behaviour scores by level of satisfaction with direction

and support given by employer regarding intellectual freedom


respondent satisfaction with direction and support from employer

Q. Do you view yourself as a professional?

Over 80% of survey participants viewed themselves as professionals which seemed to have

a direct effect on both attitude and behaviour scores. A strong sense of professional identity

appeared to have a statistically significant, positive effect on attitudes and also resulted in

higher behaviour scores amongst participants.

15

25

35

45

55


Behaviour and satisfication with direction and support given by employer

Independent

Variable

Dependent

Variable


Significant

Direction and

Support from

employer

regarding

Intellectual

freedom

Attitude F(3,168)=3.907,

p=.010

Perceived direction and support

from employer has an effect on

attitudes.

Yes


p=.203

Perceived direction and support

from employer has a slight effect

on behaviour.

No

60

Figure 54: Respondent professional identity

Figure 55: Mean and standard error of total attitude scores by professional identity

Figure 56: Mean and standard error of total behaviour scores by professional identity

139

2

30

0

50

100

150

Yes No Kind of

Do you view yourself as a professional

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Yes No Kind of

Attitude and professional identity

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

Yes No Kind of

Behaviour and professional identity

61


respondent professional identity

Q. Do you think the community respects your opinion as a professional?

Whilst some 80% of respondents viewed themselves as professionals, just over 60%

believed that the community respected their professional opinion. However respondent’s

perception of their professional standing within the community appeared to have no effect

on either attitude or behaviour scores with overlapping means and standard error margins

amongst the groups.

Figure 57: Respondent opinion on whether community views them as a professional

29

76

45

20

00

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Definitely Yes Probably Yes Maybe Probably Not Definitely Not

Opinion if community respects them as professional

Independent

Variable

Dependent

Variable


Significant

View of self

as

professional

Attitude F(2,168)=3.220,

p=.042

An individuals view of self as

professional has an effect on

attitudes.

Yes


p=.073

An individuals view of self as

professional has some effect on

behaviours.

No

62

Figure 58: Mean and standard error of total attitude by opinion as to whether the community

views them as professional

Figure 59: Figure 58: Mean and standard error of total behaviour by opinion as to whether the

community views them as professional


respondent belief as to whether their professional opinion is respected by the community

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50


Attitude and opinion if communnity respects them as professional

15

25

35

45

55


Behaviour and opinion if communnity respects them as professional

Independent

Variable

Dependent

Variable


Significant

Belief as to

whether

community

respects their

professional

opinion

Attitude F(3,166)=.239,

p=.869

Belief as to whether they are

respected as a professional has no

effect on attitude.

No


p=.785

Belief as to whether they are

respected as a professional has no

effect on behaviour.

No

63

7. Discussion The results reveal that generally the attitudes of the public library workers surveyed align

with the principles of intellectual freedom that the library associations espouse. However

the obligations that library staff feel towards stakeholders was shown to test their

commitment to these principles. Liberal attitudes towards access to information did not

always correlate with behaviours, some with liberal attitudes exhibiting restrictive

behaviours in practice and vice versa. Experience, education, the employer and the library

association all appeared to play a role in shaping the attitudes of library staff and had some

effect on whether or not these attitudes were put into practice.

7.1. Attitudes toward Intellectual Freedom

The public library workers surveyed had a strong understanding and agreement with the

core principles of intellectual freedom. When asked to describe what they thought

intellectual freedom meant as it relates to public libraries the strongest theme amongst

respondents was that it meant open access to information representing the full spectrum of

views on a topic. Respondents were also shown to be acutely aware of the role of the public

library and the responsibility of library staff to uphold the principles of intellectual freedom.

The responses to the Likert scale statements revealed an overwhelming agreement with

fundamental ideals that are outlined in LIANZA’s Statement on Intellectual Freedom.

However, much like Fiske (1958) and Cole (2000) found in their earlier studies, despite an

overwhelming agreement with the fundamental principles of intellectual freedom

respondents proved to be somewhat contradictory in their responses to other questions.

Whilst 96% of respondents agreed that public libraries should resist external pressure to

restrict access to information, 11% agreed that sometimes access to information should be

restricted to avoid controversy. This implies that whilst some respondents would not act on

an outside demand to restrict access they would themselves restrict access to pre-empt

such a complaint in the first place. Furthermore 98% of participants agreed that public

libraries should provide a wide range of sources representing the full spectrum of views, yet

27% agreed that high demand should be the primary criterion for selecting materials which

can potentially result in a library’s collection catering to the majority with mainstream

viewpoints. In fact one commenter explicitly stated that budgetary constraints coupled with

obligation to ratepayers meant materials in their library often catered to the largest portion

of the community and resources reflecting the ‘peripheries’ of the community were

underrepresented as a result.

The contradictory attitudes revealed towards intellectual freedom appear to be linked to

the obligation Oppenheim and Smith (2004) assert that library staff feel towards their

customers, the wider community and the rate payers who fund the library. As Nieuwoudt’s

(2012) study found, many survey participants felt a strong sense of responsibility towards

the community which made them reluctant to purchase material they thought could be

potentially harmful to wider society. Some 28% of respondents agreed that libraries had a

responsibility to uphold community standards; a lower level of agreement than Curry’s

64

(1997) study which found that 67% of British and 37% of Canadian library directors agreed

with the sentiment. Several participants commented on the difficulty of defining a single

community standard. Some 22% of respondents agreed that people had the right to be

protected from what they might find offensive, however commenters questioned if it was

possible to determine what could be considered offensive due to the inherent subjectivity

of the concept of offense. Labelling was viewed by many as a necessary compromise when

including controversial or offensive materials in a library collection. Some 53% agreed with

labelling potentially offensive items with only 26% disagreeing with such an action.

‘Informative’ labelling was considered necessary by many to protect patrons from material

that has the potential to offend. As Sullivan (2007) also found, many respondents viewed

labelling as a tool to pre-empt complaints about potentially controversial items with several

commenters stating that such a use was against their better judgement but preferable to

complaints that they might otherwise receive.

7.2. Behaviours Regarding Intellectual Freedom

The behaviours of respondents were measured through a hypothetical selection scenario as

Mar (2006) and Moody (2004) had used in their studies. Only 28% of respondents chose to

purchase all items, this is similar to Moody’s (2004) results in which 32% of participants

were found to have ‘low censorship’ tendencies choosing to purchase the majority of items

in the hypothetical scenario. Out of the 15 items respondents were asked to consider, with

the exception of two items, over 70% of respondents chose the purchase option. This is a

relatively good result compared with Mar’s (2006) responses in which the majority of

participants chose to purchase only half of the items they were asked to consider. The two

items which the majority of respondents chose to take restrictive actions against were items

that either instructed on or encouraged illegal activity. As Moody (2004) also found,

respondents were concerned of the legality of the library stocking such materials and those

that did choose the two items that encouraged illegal activity did so under the assumption

that they had not been banned by the Chief Censor. Perhaps unsurprisingly, in light of

respondents attitudes to the practice, the restrictive action most popular amongst

respondents was labelling. Importantly the open comment section revealed that some

respondents despite agreeing with the concept of intellectual freedom could not in good

conscience choose to purchase an item that they found to be against their own ethical or

moral standards. For example one respondent stated that whilst they agreed with providing

the spectrum of viewpoints they could not “justify buying books that condone racism.”

7.3. Correlation Between Attitudes and Behaviours

As previous studies have found (Busha, 1972; Fiske, 1958; Cole, 2000; Curry, 1997; Mar,

2006; Moody, 2004 and Nieuwoudt, 2012), the attitudes and behaviours of the participants

did not always align. Although moderate correlation between attitudes and behaviours of

respondents was found some participants, despite a high level of agreement with the

principles of intellectual freedom, had relatively restrictive behaviours. This matched the

findings of the aforementioned studies. However unlike the previous studies the survey

65

results revealed the opposite to also be true. The behaviours of some respondents aligned

with the principles of intellectual freedom despite having a low level of agreement with

these principles. In fact a number of participants, when tested, scored higher in their

behaviour scores than their attitude indicating that despite personal disagreement with

some aspects related to the tenants of intellectual freedom they still acted in a manner that

was professionally expected of them.

7.4. Effects of Certain Variables on Attitudes and Behaviours

7.4.1. Experience

The experience of library staff appeared to have some effect upon their attitudes and

behaviours regarding intellectual freedom. Those in a leadership or managerial job position

were shown to have a more positive attitude and higher behaviour scores than the

professional and para-professional groups. The amount of years spent in the sector seems

to positively affect both attitudes and behaviours however this positive correlation appears

to plateau after about five years of experience.

7.4.2. Education

The education of library staff has a strong, statistically significant positive effect on both the

attitude and behaviours of library staff. This mirrors Busha’s (1972) findings that there was a

positive correlation between the education level of respondents and more liberal attitudes

towards intellectual freedom. However this study found that only library qualifications had

such an effect, with other educational attainments having no relationship with the

behaviours or attitudes of participants. There was an anomaly in the results, the

Postgraduate Certificate qualification appeared to have no effect on behaviour or attitudes,

with respondents in this group having a similar or lower mean score than those with no

library qualification. This anomaly may be due to this respondent group being much smaller

than the others or it may imply that more extensive study is required to instil professional

ethics and the implications of their practical application, the Postgraduate Certificate being

much less extensive than the other library qualifications listed. There also appeared to be a

relationship between participation in professional development and better attitudes and

behaviours, however the amount of time invested in professional development seemed to

have no further effect.

7.4.3. Library Association

Professional associations play an important role in the construction of professional identity

which affects the behaviours and attitudes of individuals and their approach to work

situations (Henczel & Macauley, 2013). The majority of respondents were satisfied with the

direction and support given by LIANZA on the topic of intellectual freedom. Whilst library

association membership proved to have no effect on respondents, possession of

professional registration appeared to positively affect attitudes and behaviours towards

intellectual freedom. The majority of respondents viewed themselves as professionals and

this proved to have a positive effect on both attitudes and behaviours. Awareness of

66

LIANZA’s statement on intellectual freedom did not appear to be enough to affect attitudes

or behaviours, understanding of how these broad ideals might be practically applied was

seemingly required to have an effect. Those that thought the statement could be practically

applied in the library and would be useful to refer to in a work situation were shown to have

better attitudes and behaviours towards intellectual freedom.

7.4.4. Employer

Employers appear to play a role in shaping the attitudes and behaviours of their staff

towards intellectual freedom. On the job training on intellectual freedom was shown to

have a positive effect on attitude and behaviour, however only 20% of respondents had had

such training. Those that were aware that their library had a policy on intellectual freedom

were shown to have better attitudes and behaviours yet 45% of participants did not know if

their library had such a policy. Participants that felt that they were given support and

direction from their employer regarding intellectual freedom had better attitudes towards

intellectual freedom and seemed to have more liberal behaviours as well, however just

under 50% of participants did not feel like they were given guidance or support from their

employer on the topic. Despite the positive effect that training and guidance on intellectual

freedom appears to have on employee attitudes and behaviours it does not appear to be

prioritised by employers, likely losing out to more immediately practical training needs.

8. Conclusions Although respondents overwhelmingly agreed with the fundamental principles of

intellectual freedom, in practice some had difficulty applying them. Library workers need to

understand how these principles can be applied in complex situations, as merely being

aware of the principles espoused by the associations has proven to be inadequate. As

Oppenheim and Smith (2004) point out there is no best practice ethical theory or model

that library staff can apply in an attempt to overcome their own biases and self-censoring

tendencies. A study that explores such a framework and proposes an approach to

professional ethics that could be utilised practically within the profession to better combat

self-censorship and bias would be greatly beneficial.

The survey results revealed that the employer plays an important role in shaping the

attitude and behaviour of staff toward intellectual freedom. However only 20% of

respondents had had on the job training and only 40% were aware of their library’s policy

on intellectual freedom. These results suggest that employers need to give higher priority to

ethics training and awareness across the library.

It is clear that one of the biggest motivations behind the self-censoring practices of library

workers is the obligation that staff members feel towards patrons, the wider community

and the rate payers that fund the library. Whilst respondents were shown to have a fairly

strong professional self- image, many still did not feel confident enough to stand behind

their professional ideals in the face of complaints, often acting restrictively to avoid

67

challenges in the first place. This suggests that the library association needs to do more to

cultivate the professional identity of library staff to ensure that they have the confidence to

carry out professional ethics in the face of opposition.

The literature review revealed a clear gap in the research; so far no study has explored the

public’s understanding of intellectual freedom as it relates to libraries. Survey participants

alluded to the necessity of educating the public on the important role that the library plays

in maintaining intellectual freedom. A research project seeking to understand the public’s

view of intellectual freedom could enable the library association to tailor an awareness

campaign to educate the public about the importance of intellectual freedom being upheld

within the library. If the public are made aware of intellectual freedom as it relates to the

library it would hopefully reduce the number of complaints and enable library staff to better

explain contentious decisions.

The conceptual framework used for the study (see figure 1) proved an effective approach.

The results revealed that experience, education, the employer and library association all

play a role in shaping the attitudes and practices of library staff in regards to intellectual

freedom. It would be valuable for a research project to further explore the role these

variables play in shaping the professional ethics of staff, the level of interaction between the

variables and the extent that each affects attitudes and behaviours.

68

9. Bibliography

American Library Association. (2014). ALA Demographic Studies. Retrieved April 15, 2015,

from

http://www.ala.org/research/sites/ala.org.research/files/content/initiatives/membersh

ipsurveys/September2014ALADemographics.pdf

American Library Association. Intellectual freedom and censorship Q & A. Retrieved August

15, 2014, from

http://www.ala.org/Template.cfm?Section=basics&Template=/ContentManagement/C

ontentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=60610

Attebury, R. & Holder, S. (2008). New liaison librarians: Factors influencing confidence

levels. Electronic Journal of Academic and Special Librarianship, 9(3), Retrieved October

12, 2014, from

http://southernlibrarianship.icaap.org/content/v09n03/attebury_r01.html

Behaviour. (2007). In Last, J.(Ed.), A Dictionary of Public Health. Oxford University Press.

Retrieved January 15, 2015, from

http://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780195160901.001.0001/acref

-9780195160901-e-367.

Ball, P. (1998). Censorship in the public libraries of New Zealand: A survey. Unpublished MLIS

research project, Victoria University of Wellington, Wellington, New Zealand

Bryman, A. (2008). Social Research Methods 3rd edition, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Busha, C. H. (1972). Intellectual freedom and censorship: the climate of opinion in

Midwestern public libraries. The Library Quarterly, 42(3), 283-301.

Cole, N. (2000). The influence of attitudes on public library stock management practice.

Libri: International Journal of Libraries and Information Services, 50(1), 37-47.

Colman, A. (2009). attitude. Oxford Reference. Retrieved January 15, 2015, from

http://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780199534067.001.0001/acref

-9780199534067-e-722.

Curry, A. (1997). The limits of tolerance: Censorship and intellectual freedom in public

libraries. Annapolis: Scarecrow Press.

Direction. (2014). OED Online. Oxford University Press. Retrieved January 15, 2015, from

http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/53301?redirectedFrom=direction

http://www.ala.org/research/sites/ala.org.research/files/content/initiatives/membershipsurveys/September2014ALADemographics.pdf

http://www.ala.org/research/sites/ala.org.research/files/content/initiatives/membershipsurveys/September2014ALADemographics.pdf

http://www.ala.org/Template.cfm?Section=basics&Template=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=60610

http://www.ala.org/Template.cfm?Section=basics&Template=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=60610

http://southernlibrarianship.icaap.org/content/v09n03/attebury_r01.html

http://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780199534067.001.0001/acref-9780199534067-e-722

http://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780199534067.001.0001/acref-9780199534067-e-722

69

Donald, J. A. (2000). Censorship of print material in New Zealand secondary school libraries:

A survey. Unpublished MLIS research project, Victoria University of Wellington,

Wellington, New Zealand.

Downey, J. (2013). Self-censorship in selection of LGBT-themed materials. Reference & User

Services Quarterly, 53(2), 104-107.

Duthie, F. (2010). Libraries and the ethics of censorship. The Australian Library Journal,

59(3), 86-94.

Evans, J. D. (1996). Straightforward statistics for the behavioral sciences. Pacific Grove, CA:

Brooks/Cole Publishing.

Fiske, M. (1958). Book selection and censorship: A study of school and public libraries in

california. Los Angeles: University of California Press.

Franks, R. (2012). Grey Matter: the ageing librarian workforce, with a focus on public and

academic libraries in Australia and the United States. Australasian public libraries and

information services,25(3), 104-110

Henczel, S. & Macauley, P. (2013). Professionalism: exploring the role and responsibility of

our professional associations. Paper presented at the Library and Information

Association of New Zealand Aotearoa Conference, 20-23 October. Retrieved January 14,

2015, from http://www.lianza.org.nz/sites/default/files/Sue%20Henczel%20-

%20Professionalism%20Exploring%20the%20role%20and%20responsibilities%20of%20

professional%20associations.pdf

Hill, R. (2010). The problem of self-censorship. School Library Monthly, 27(2), 9-12.

Julien, H. & Genuis, S.K. (2011). Librarians’ experiences of the teaching role: A national

survey of librarians. Library & Information Science Research, 33(2), 103-111.

Knox, E. (2014). “The books will still be in the library”: narrow definitions of censorship in

the discourse of challengers. Library Trends, 62(4), 740-749.

LIANZA. (2002). Statement on intellectual freedom. Retrieved August 16, 2014,

fromhttp://www.lianza.org.nz/sites/lianza.org.nz/files/LIANZA%20Statement%20-

%20Intellectual%20Freedom.pdf

Mar, G. N. (2006). Freedom of access to information in Fiji: The effect of cultural values on

the attitudes and behaviour of library staff. Unpublished MLIS research project, Victoria

University of Wellington, Wellington, New Zealand.

http://www.lianza.org.nz/sites/default/files/Sue%20Henczel%20-%20Professionalism%20Exploring%20the%20role%20and%20responsibilities%20of%20professional%20associations.pdf



http://www.lianza.org.nz/sites/lianza.org.nz/files/LIANZA%20Statement%20-%20Intellectual%20Freedom.pdf

http://www.lianza.org.nz/sites/lianza.org.nz/files/LIANZA%20Statement%20-%20Intellectual%20Freedom.pdf

70

Moody, K. (2004) Opinions and Experiences of Queensland-Based Public Librarians with

Regard to Censorship of Materials in Public Library Collections: An Exploratory Analysis.

Paper presented at the ALIA 2004 Biennial Conference: Challenging Ideas, 21-24

September 2004, Gold Coast Convention & Exhibition Centre, Queensland, Australia.

Retrieved August 25, 2014, from http://eprints.qut.edu.au/479/

Moody, K. (2005). Covert censorship in libraries: A discussion paper. The Australian Library

Journal, 54(2), 138-147.

Nieuwoudt, J. (2012). Do New Zealand public library workers self-censor controversial library

materials?: An exploration of their knowledge and views on the promotion of

intellectual freedom in the library. Unpublished MIS research project, Victoria University

of Wellington, Wellington, New Zealand.

Oppenheim, C. & Smith, V. (2004). Censorship in libraries. Information Services & Use, 24,

159-170.

Parkinson, P. (1987). Greater expectations: services to lesbians and gay men, New Zealand

Libraries, 46(2), 331-357.

Quinn, B. (2012). Collection development and the psychology of bias. The Library Quarterly,

82(3), 277-304.

Saunders, L. (2013). Information as Weapon: Propaganda, Politics, and the Role of the

Library. Paper presented at the ACRL 2013 conference: Imagine, Innovate, Inspire, 10-

13 April 2013, Indianapolis. Retrieved September 25, 2014, from

http://www.ala.org/acrl/sites/ala.org.acrl/files/content/conferences/confsandpreconfs

/2013/papers/Saunders_Information.pdf

Sens, J.M. (2010). “Not I” Said the Pig: Who Defends Intellectual Freedom for Librarians?.

Library Philosophy and Practice, August, 1-4.

Sullivan, M. T. (2007). Community standards in New Zealand public libraries: an exploratory

study. Unpublished MLIS research project, Victoria University of Wellington,

Wellington, New Zealand.

Taylor, K., & McMenemy, D. (2013). Censorship challenges to books in Scottish public

libraries. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 45(2), 153-167.

The United Nations.The universal declaration of human rights. Retrieved August 14, 2014,

http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml#a19

http://www.ala.org/acrl/sites/ala.org.acrl/files/content/conferences/confsandpreconfs/2013/papers/Saunders_Information.pdf

http://www.ala.org/acrl/sites/ala.org.acrl/files/content/conferences/confsandpreconfs/2013/papers/Saunders_Information.pdf

http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml#a19

71

UNESCO. UNESCO public library manifesto. Retrieved, August 15, 2014, Retrieved from

http://www.unesco.org/webworld/libraries/manifestos/libraman.html

http://www.unesco.org/webworld/libraries/manifestos/libraman.html

72

Appendix A: LIANZA’s Statement on Intellectual Freedom*

Statement adopted by the Council of the Library and Information Association New Zealand

Aotearoa, 21 March 2002 (replaces the LIANZA Statement on Censorship).

1. Society creates libraries as institutions to store and make available knowledge, information,

and opinions and to facilitate the enjoyment of learning and creativity in every field. Every

library has a responsibility to provide its users with the widest range of information

materials possible, which are within the constraints of its budget, relevant to its users'

requirements, and which represent the spectrum of points of view on the topic held in the

community.

2. Librarians have a responsibility to ensure that the selection and availability of information

materials is governed solely by professional considerations. In so doing, they should neither

promote nor suppress opinions and beliefs expressed in the materials with which they deal.

These professional considerations include the use of knowledge, skills, collection

management experience, and collection development policies to make decisions on what is

selected for the library collection.

3. No information resources should be excluded from libraries because of the opinions they

express; nor because of who the author is; nor on the grounds of the political, social, moral

or other views of their author.

4. No library materials should be censored, restricted, removed from libraries, or have access

denied to them because of partisan or doctrinal disapproval or pressure. This includes access

to web-based information resources.

5. Librarians should resist all attempts at censorship, except where that censorship is required

by law. Librarians are free to request, and to lobby for, the repeal of laws, which

compromise the principles set out in this statement.

*Statement taken from

http://www.lianza.org.nz/sites/default/files/LIANZA%20Statement%20-

%20Intellectual%20Freedom.pdf January 15, 2015.

http://www.lianza.org.nz/sites/default/files/LIANZA%20Statement%20-%20Intellectual%20Freedom.pdf

http://www.lianza.org.nz/sites/default/files/LIANZA%20Statement%20-%20Intellectual%20Freedom.pdf

73

Appendix B: Survey Instrument

SCHOOL OF INFORMATION MANAGEMENT

TE KURA TIAKI, WHAKAWHITI KŌRERO

LEVEL 5, RUTHERFORD HOUSE, PIPITEA CAMPUS,

23 LAMBTON QUAY, WELLINGTON

PO Box 600, Wellington 6140, New Zealand

Phone + 64-4-463 5103 Fax +64-4-463 5446

Email [email protected] Website www.victoria.ac.nz/sim

Participant Information Sheet

Research Project Title: New Zealand Public Library Staff and Intellectual Freedom.

Researcher: Kathryn Hill, School of Information Management, Victoria University of Wellington.

As part of the completion of my Masters of Information Studies, this study is designed to explore

intellectual freedom in public libraries. More specifically the study aims to determine the attitudes

and behaviours of New Zealand public library staff towards intellectual freedom. It is hoped that that

this study will reveal whether certain variables, such as education, training and professional identity

affect these attitudes and behaviours. Victoria University requires, and has granted, approval from

the School’s Human Ethics Committee.

I am inviting public library staff to participate in this research. Participants will be asked to take part

in a 15-20 minute survey.

An opportunity to enter a prize draw for a $50 Booksellers voucher will be given upon completion of

the survey. Any contact information given to enter the prize draw will not be linked to your survey

responses in anyway because this contact information will be stored in a database that is separate

from the survey data.

Survey participation is voluntary, and you will not be identified personally in any written report

produced as a result of this research, including possible publication in academic conferences and

journals. All material collected will be anonymous, and will be viewed only by myself and my

supervisor Dr Dan Dorner, Senior Lecturer, School of Information Management. Any collected data

will remain confidential and reported in aggregated form only. The Research Report will be

submitted for marking to the School of Information Management, and subsequently deposited in the

University Library. All data collected from participants will be destroyed within 1 year after the

completion of the project.

Your full completion of the survey will be taken to indicate consent. You may withdraw from the

survey at any time by closing your web browser window without completing the survey; any data

entered up to that point will not be recorded in the survey’s database. However, the value of the

74

research results depends on the participation of as many individuals as possible. We hope,

therefore, to obtain your precious contribution.

If you have any questions or would like to receive further information about the project, please

contact me at [email protected], or you may contact my supervisor Dr Dan Dorner, Senior

Lecturer, School of Information Management at [email protected] or telephone 04 463

5781.

Kathryn Hill

75

This section asks for your opinion.

Please carefully read the statements below and indicate which answer best expresses your opinion.

Please answer ALL questions. If you would like to make any comments regarding your answers to

any of these statements there is an opportunity to do so at the end of this section.

Public libraries should provide their users with access to information from a range of sources that

represent the spectrum of points of view on topics.

Strongly Agree (5)

Agree (4)

Neither Agree nor Disagree (3)

Disagree (2)

Strongly Disagree (1)

Public libraries should resist pressure from individuals or groups to restrict access to information.

Strongly Agree (5)

Agree (4)


Disagree (2)


In order to avoid controversy, sometimes libraries should restrict access to information.

Strongly Agree (1)

Agree (2)


Disagree (4)


High demand should be the primary criterion for selecting materials for a public library collection.

Strongly Agree (1)

Agree (2)


Disagree (4)


76

People have the right to be protected from material which they might find offensive.

Strongly Agree (1)

Agree (2)


Disagree (4)


It is appropriate for a public library collection to include material that is acceptable under law but

that people may find offensive, such as graphic pictures in medical, war or horror works.

Strongly Agree (5)

Agree (4)


Disagree (2)


Public librarians have a responsibility to uphold local community standards when selecting materials

for the library collection.

Strongly Agree (1)

Agree (2)


Disagree (4)


Library materials that may offend should be labelled with warnings.

Strongly Agree (1)

Agree (2)


Disagree (4)


Libraries should provide users with materials that reflect the diverse views held by society. This

includes materials that are unusual and unpopular with the majority.

Strongly Agree (5)

Agree (4)


Disagree (2)


77

Public libraries play an important role in maintaining intellectual freedom.

Strongly Agree (5)

Agree (4)


Disagree (2)


Optional Comments: feel free to elaborate on any of your answers from this section

What does the principle of Intellectual Freedom mean to you as it relates to public libraries?

78

This section poses a hypothetical scenario for you to consider.

You are in charge of the acquisitions for a new public library in the community you currently work in.

There are no budgetary or space limitations and no policies about the types of material to be

included in your library’s collection.

Please read each statement carefully and tick ONE answer that best indicates how you would

handle each of the following items.

Please answer ALL questions. You will be given the opportunity to make comments about any of

your answers at the end of this section.

I would purchase the item (4)

I would purchase the item and label

it, warning of content (3)

I would purchase the item and place it on restricted or closed access (2)

I would not purchase the item

(1)

A novel that depicts Māori in a

stereotypical way.

A book that is critical of the

generally accepted account of the first

people who discovered New

Zealand.

A book that is critical of the

generally accepted information about

the Jewish Holocaust.

An autobiography of a member of the

militant Islamic fundamentalist

group, the Islamic State (ISIS).

A non-fiction book critical of Islamic fundamentalism.

A non-fiction book critical of the

Catholic Church.

A book providing instruction for the traditional practice

of witchcraft (Wicca).

A book promoting the practice of

polygamy.

79

A magazine, aimed at teenagers,

providing assistance to homosexual

people in ‘coming out’.

A guide to gay parenting.

A ‘how-to’ guide for extreme anarchism.

A book advocating revolution, both

peaceful and violent.

A book about the production and use of hallucinogenics

and narcotics.

A magazine promoting the anti-

vaccination movement.

An autobiography of an individual who

assisted a family member in ending

their life.

Optional Comments: (feel free to elaborate on any of your responses from this section if you wish to

do so)

This section asks for your opinion on training and professionalism.

Please carefully read the statements below and indicate which answer best expresses your opinion.

Please answer ALL questions.

Are you aware of the 2002 Library and Information Association of New Zealand (LIANZA) Statement

on Intellectual Freedom?

Yes

No

80

In your opinion can the sentiments expressed in this statement be realistically applied in a practical

work situation?

(If you are unaware of LIANZA's Statement on Intellectual Freedom or would like to refresh your

memory, the statement can be viewed

here: http://www.lianza.org.nz/sites/default/files/LIANZA%20Statement%20-

%20Intellectual%20Freedom.pdf)

Definitely yes

Probably yes

Maybe

Probably not

Definitely not

Would this statement be helpful to refer to when you are confronted with a work situation that

concerns intellectual freedom?

Definitely yes

Probably yes

Maybe

Probably not

Definitely not

Are you satisfied with the direction and support given by LIANZA in regards to intellectual freedom?

Very Satisfied

Satisfied

Neutral

Dissatisfied

Very Dissatisfied

Have you had any on the job training regarding intellectual freedom?

Yes

No

If No Is Selected, Then Skip To Does your library have a policy...

81

Did this training give you an understanding of the public library’s obligations towards the principle of

intellectual freedom?

Definitely yes

Probably yes

Maybe

Probably not

Definitely not

Does your library have a policy that states its stance on intellectual freedom?

Yes

No

Not Sure

If No or Not Sure Is Selected, Then Skip To Are you satisfied with the direction…

Do you refer to this when confronted with situations that might potentially infringe intellectual

freedom?

Never

Rarely

Sometimes

Often

All of the Time

Are you satisfied with the direction and support given by your employer in regards to intellectual

freedom?

Very Satisfied

Satisfied

Neutral

Dissatisfied

Very Dissatisfied

Do you view yourself as a professional?

Yes

No

Kind of

If No Is Selected, Then Skip To How do you think the library profession is viewed…

82

Do you think the community respects your opinion as a professional?

Definitely yes

Probably yes

Maybe

Probably not

Definitely not

How do you think the library profession is viewed in general by society?

Demographics

Please note that these demographic questions are essential for analysis purposes, but cannot be

used in any way to identify specific respondents.

Please indicate your age:

Under 25

25-34

35-44

45-54

Over 54

Please indicate your Gender:

Male

Female

Other

Please indicate how many years you have worked in the Library and Information sector:

Less than 2 years

2-5 years

6-10 years

11-15 years

16-20 years

More than 20 years

83

Please indicate your highest level of library qualification:

No library qualification

Diploma

Bachelor's Degree

Postgraduate Certificate

Postgraduate Diploma

Masters

PhD

Other (please specify) ____________________

What year did you complete your library qualification

Other than your library qualification, what is your highest level of qualification gained?

No qualification

Bachelors

Honours

Masters

PhD

Other (Please specify) ____________________

What is your current job title?

In a year, how much time do you usually spend, in total, on ongoing professional development? (i.e.

formal education, short courses, workplace training, research, attending or organising conferences

etc.)

I don't do any professional development

1-5 days per year

6-10 days per year

Over 10 days per year

Are you a member of the Library and Information Association of New Zealand (LIANZA)?

Yes

No

84

Are you a professionally registered member of LIANZA?

Yes

No

Please indicate the population size that your library collection serves:

Over 200,000 people

100,000 - 200,000 people

30,000 - 100,000 people

10,000 - 30, 000 people

5,000 - 10, 000 people

Under 5,000 people

Don't know

85

Appendix C: Cover Letter sent to Professional Email Lists

Do you work in a public library?

Are you interested in contributing to an academic study exploring intellectual freedom in

public libraries?

Would you like to enter the draw to win a $50 Booksellers voucher?

If so your opinions are being sought for a quick survey.

As part of the completion of my Masters of Information Studies, I’m conducting a research project

that is designed to investigate attitudes and behaviours of public library staff towards the concept of

intellectual freedom.

I am inviting public library staff to participate in this research and complete a 10-15 minute online

survey. Please open the link below to start the survey.

http://vuw.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_6gQiMZtMCWRh1Kl

Intellectual freedom is fundamental to the library and information profession and the concept is at

the core of public libraries. This study will contribute toward research that explores the role of

intellectual freedom in the library profession. However, the value of the research results depends on

the participation of as many individuals as possible. I hope, therefore, that you will find the time to

share your opinions and contribute to this study.

I would appreciate it if you could please share this with anyone you know working in a public library

who may be interested in this survey.


Survey participation is voluntary, and you will not be identified personally in any written report

produced as a result of this research, including possible publication in academic conferences and

journals. All material collected will be anonymous, and will be viewed only by myself and my

supervisor Dr Dan Dorner, Senior Lecturer, School of Information Management. Any collected data

will remain confidential and reported in aggregated form only. The Research Report will be

submitted for marking to the School of Information Management, and subsequently deposited in the

University Library. All data collected from participants will be destroyed within 1 year after the

completion of the project.

If you have any questions or would like to receive further information about the project, please

contact me at [email protected], or you may contact my supervisor Dr Dan Dorner, Senior

Lecturer, School of Information Management at [email protected] or telephone 04 463 5781.

Thank you in advance for your assistance. Please don’t hesitate to contact me if you have

any questions or concerns, or would like to receive further information about the project.



86

Thanks and Regards,

Kathryn Hill

MIS Student, Victoria University of Wellington

Date post:	12-Feb-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	vuhuong
View:	220 times
Download:	1 times

Intellectual Freedom in New Zealand Public Libraries · PDF fileIntellectual Freedom in New...

Documents